The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Mumbai Port Authority challenging a Bombay High Court judgment which had upheld an order of the NCSC directing the Authority to grant consequential benefits and pay arrears to an employee belonging to the Scheduled Caste category.

Background

The employee, Madhavi K. Chandorkar, was appointed as a Typist-cum-Computer Clerk with the Mumbai Port Authority in July 1997. Pursuant to the Department of Personnel and Training's Office Memorandum dated January 21, 2002, she was promoted to higher posts and granted consequential seniority.

The 2002 Office Memorandum was subsequently challenged before the Bombay High Court by the Mumbai Port Trust Non-SC/ST Employees Association. In 2016, the High Court quashed the Office Memorandum. Following the judgment, the Port Authority revised the seniority position of employees and issued a circular in December 2018 directing that promotions not in conformity with the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India would be revisited.

Pursuant thereto, Chandorkar was issued a show-cause notice and, after being granted an opportunity of hearing, was demoted from Stenographer Grade-I to Grade-II with notional effect.

Aggrieved by the demotion, she approached the NCSC. After hearing the parties, the Commission directed the Port Authority to adhere to DoPT guidelines relating to reservation in promotion, prepare the reservation roster properly, grant promotion as per reservation rules, implement the order and pay arrears within thirty days, and submit an action taken report to the Commission.

The Port Authority challenged the Commission's order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the directions issued by the NCSC were within the scope of its constitutional powers and dismissed the writ petition.

Issue Before The Court

The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the NCSC, while exercising powers under Article 338 of the Constitution, could issue binding directions in service matters and compel compliance by directing payment of arrears and grant of consequential benefits.

Court's Observations

Examining Article 338, the Court noted that the Constitution entrusts the NCSC with the duty to investigate and monitor safeguards available to Scheduled Castes, inquire into complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards, advise governments, and make recommendations for effective implementation of constitutional and statutory protections.

The Court observed that Article 338(8) confers upon the Commission certain powers of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, receiving evidence, and requisitioning documents. However, these powers are limited to facilitating investigations and inquiries and do not convert the Commission into an adjudicatory forum.

Rejecting the contention that Article 338 contains an enforcement mechanism empowering the Commission to issue binding orders, the Bench held that the constitutional provision does not confer adjudicatory authority upon the NCSC. The Commission may inquire into complaints, record factual findings and make recommendations to the appropriate Government, but it cannot pass enforceable directions determining rights or granting relief.

The Court relied on its earlier decisions in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, Collector v. Ajit Jogi, and Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women to reiterate that bodies vested with investigative and recommendatory functions cannot assume the role of courts or tribunals in the absence of an express statutory mandate.

The Bench observed that although constitutional commissions such as the NCSC perform an important socially beneficial role, the legislature has consciously confined their functions to investigation, monitoring, recommendation and advice, and has not vested them with adjudicatory powers.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment and held that the directions issued by the NCSC requiring payment of arrears were beyond its constitutional authority. The Court declared such directions to be contrary to the Constitution and non-est in law.

Case Title: Mumbai Port Authority -vs- National Commission for Schedule Caste'

Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil)/ 33359/ 2025

For Petitioner: Mrs. Rekha Palli, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Meharia, Mrs. Tannishtha Singh, Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Mr. Sambhav and Mrs. Priya S Bhalerao, Advocates of Meharia & Company, AOR

For Respondent: Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR

Click here to read/ download order