The National Commission for the Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can exercise the power of civil courts only for the limited purpose of summoning individuals, requiring production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits and so on but not for issuing permanent or interim injunctions, the Madras High Court has ruled.
Acting Chief Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held, the commission could not give unto itself the power to grant injunctions, by amending its Rules of Procedure, after the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 338(8) of the Constitution and held categorically that the NCSC was not empowered to do so.
The judges agreed with advocate Naveen Kumar Murthi that the commission could not rely upon Rule 7.2.(a) vii introduced in 2009 after the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitutional provision in 1996 itself in the All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association versus Union of India and others.
Also read | National Commission for Scheduled Castes not empowered to order promotions or transfer of employees: HC
In view of the law laid down by the apex court, the judges allowed a writ petition filed by T.M. Jayaraman of V. Madepalli village in Krishnagiri district and set aside an order passed by the NCSC on October 18, 2022 restraining the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department from evicting a temple land encroacher.
The petitioner, also belonging to a Scheduled Caste, told the court that the HR&CE Department had issued eviction notices to 11 individuals who had encroached upon 3.75 acres of land belonging to the Sakkiyamman Temple at Thasirapalli in Krishnagiri district. One of the encroachers K. Srinivasan approached the NCSC. Instead of addressing his complaint to the NCSC chairperson, vice chairperson or the secretary, the complainant had addressed it to one of its members by name. The complaint was entertained and the HR&CE Department was restrained from taking further action against the complainant until further orders.
Assailing the injunction order, Mr. Murthi argued that it goes directly against the Supreme Court dictum. He also contended that the NCSC could not restrain the HR&CE Department from carrying out its statutory duty to protect temple lands from encroachments in exercise of its powers under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act of 1959.
State Government Pleader P. Muthukumar and Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) N.R.R. Arun Natarajan too supported the case of the writ petitioner, and contended that the introduction of Rule 7.2.a. (vii) in 2009 would have no bearing at all when the Supreme Court had clearly interpreted the Constitutional provision itself.
Concurring with their submissions, the first Division Bench set aside the NCSC’s injunction order and imposed costs of ₹2,000 on the complainant before the commission. It ordered that the costs be paid to the Executive Officer of the Sakkiyamman Temple for having “misused the legal process.”
