Can the National Commission for Scheduled Castes issue binding directions? | Explained

Published 31 July 2026 · local

The story so far: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 28, 2026) has clarified that the Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) does not have adjudicatory

The story so far: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 28, 2026) has clarified that the Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) does not have adjudicatory powers under Article 338 of the Constitution and cannot issue a binding order in service disputes. While the Commission has powers similar to those of a civil court to summon witnesses, call for documents and receive evidence during an inquiry, these powers are only meant to facilitate investigations. The ruling came in a case involving promotional benefits claimed by an employee of the Mumbai Port Authority. What was the case about? The case arose from the service dispute of a stenographer, who joined the Mumbai Port Authority in 1997. She was as Stenographer Grade-I from Grade II after being granted consequential seniority under a 2002 Office Memorandum relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees. Also Read | Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot pass permanent/interim injunction orders, rules Madras High Court However, after the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) and subsequent government instructions, the benefit of consequential seniority was withdrawn, leading to her reversion to a lower post.

After the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her challenge, she approached the NCSC. The Commission directed the Port Authority to reinstate her promotion and extend all consequential monetary benefits. The Bombay High Court declined to interfere with the Commission’s order, prompting the Port Authority to approach the Supreme Court. What did the Supreme Court rule? The Court held that Article 338 does not confer adjudicatory powers on the NCSC. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “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.” It examined Article 338(5), which lists the Commission’s functions, including investigating constitutional safeguards, inquiring into complaints, monitoring implementation of safeguards, advising governments and submitting reports to the President The Bench noted that Article 338(8) grants the Commission certain powers of a civil court, such as summoning witnesses, receiving evidence and requisitioning documents.