Observing that the National Commission for Schedule Caste (NCSC) is a recommendatory and advisory body having no authority to pass an adjudicatory order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 28) declared the NCSC order to be non-binding, in which the NCSC had ordered payment of arrears and other reliefs in a service-related matter.

“The powers entrusted to NCSC are limited in nature. Clearly NCSC and its other compatriots under Articles 338A and 338B are Constitutional Bodies with a socially beneficent purpose but quite apparently, the Legislature has prescribed a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory. They are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the NCSC order passed while adjudicating a service-related dispute.

This was the case where the Respondent No. 3, a Scheduled Caste employee of Mumbai Port Authority, was promoted under a 2002 Office Memorandum (OM). However, the 2002 OM superseded the 1997 OM on seniority.

In 2016, the 2002 OM was quashed by the Bombay High Court, pursuant to which the Authority reset seniority and demoted Respondent No. 3 in 2020 as per 1997 OM.

Aggrieved, she approached the NCSC, which in 2024 directed her reinstatement with arrears.

The Authority's challenge to this order was dismissed by the High Court in a Writ Petition, following which an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that the NCSC lacked the jurisdiction to pass an adjudicatory order in a service-related dispute.

Reference was made to the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606, where the Court observed that the powers of the NCSC flowing from the Constitution under Article 338 were for the limited purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters but not passing an adjudicatory order.

“It is therefore clear that while it has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence. In other words, NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask the concerned Government, either the Centre or the State to act thereupon. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to the submission of the NCSC which states that the word “safeguards” is an enforcement limb of Sub-article (5). Such a submission is difficult to accept in view of the explicit language of the Article. It certainly does not confer adjudicatory power, at best recommendatory in nature. The power provided is to inquire into the deprivation of “rights and safeguards” of the Scheduled Castes.”, the Court observed.

“The directions issued by the NCSC in as much as it relates to the payment of arrears is declared to be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and as such non-est in law.”, the Court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: MUMBAI PORT AUTHORITY VERSUS NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv. Ms. Tannishtha Singh, Adv. Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sambhav, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Anish Venkatesh Bindlish, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vaidushya Parth, Adv. M/S. Meharia & Company, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Dhatri Singh, Adv. Mr. Guneswaran Pv, Adv. Ms. Hari Preethi, Adv. Mr. Harshit Vashish, Adv. Ms. Bhavini Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Subodh Kr, Pathak, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Mor, Adv. Ms. Arunima Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. V. Elangovan, Adv.