2014 (4) TMI 1063 - HC - Indian Laws

Charges of ill-treatment and discrimination - Summons and warrants issued by the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes - Insisting personal appearance of Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - Recommendation of National Commission for scheduled Castes to GOI - Held that - There was sufficient material before the Commission by way of complaints as well as replies submitted by the University to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the scheduled castes have been deprived of any right available to them or not and to submit a report in this regard under Article 338 but there was no necessity of summoning the Vice-Chancellor. For the aforesaid reasons the issuance of summons and warrant in question is not sustainable being unjustified. Recommendation of National Commission - We take strong exception to such recommendations/ recitals in the Report. Here, it has clearly exceeded its boundaries. Actions of the Commission can be judicially reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Courts. If aggrieved by any order of the High Court, the Commission can always assail the same in accordance with law or seek its vacation or modification but such observations are impermissible and contemptuous. The Commission appears to be unmindful of the limits of its powers and the decorum required to be maintained by it with regard to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. We refrain ourselves from taking any further action in the matter in the solemn hope that good sense shall prevail with the Commission in future. In view of the fact that the report has already been submitted by the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution, the summons and warrants issued by it for personal appearance of the petitioner have lost their efficacy/relevance, as such, there is no need to quash the same at this stage, though, as observed earlier, issuance of the same was not justified. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC).
2. Maintainability of complaints before the NCSC.
3. Justification for issuing summons and warrants for the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC):
The primary issue in the writ petitions was whether the NCSC had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by various individuals, including Dr. Indu Choudhary. The duties of the NCSC under Article 338(5) of the Constitution include investigating and monitoring matters relating to safeguards for Scheduled Castes, inquiring into specific complaints of deprivation of rights, and making recommendations to the President. The Commission is empowered to regulate its own procedure under Article 338(4). However, the Court noted that many of the complaints, such as those relating to administrative and disciplinary matters, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the NCSC as they did not involve deprivation of rights or safeguards specific to Scheduled Castes. The Court emphasized that the Commission must apply its mind to determine whether a complaint falls within its jurisdiction before proceeding.

2. Maintainability of Complaints Before the NCSC:
The Court examined the maintainability of various complaints filed with the NCSC. For instance, Dr. Indu Choudhary's complaint about her eviction from the guest house and subsequent disciplinary proceedings was found to be barred by Rule 7.4.1 (e), (f), and (g) of the Rules of Procedures of the NCSC, as it involved administrative matters and was subjudice. Similarly, complaints by other individuals, such as those alleging irregularities in appointments and non-implementation of reservation policies, were scrutinized. The Court found that some complaints lacked specific allegations of caste-based harassment or deprivation of rights and were therefore not maintainable. The Court stressed that the NCSC should not entertain vexatious complaints made with oblique motives and should ensure that complaints are substantiated with supporting documents and relevant legal provisions.

3. Justification for Issuing Summons and Warrants for Personal Appearance of the Vice-Chancellor:
The Court addressed whether the NCSC was justified in insisting on the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor. The NCSC has the power to summon individuals under Article 338(8) for the purpose of facilitating investigations and inquiries. However, the Court noted that this power should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. The Vice-Chancellor was neither a witness to any incident nor had personal knowledge of the matters in question. The University had already submitted detailed replies and relevant records to the NCSC. The Court found that the repeated summons and warrants for the Vice-Chancellor's personal appearance were unjustified and issued without proper application of mind. The Court emphasized that the NCSC should specify the reasons and purpose for summoning individuals and should rely on the material already provided by the University.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the NCSC had entertained some complaints without due consideration of its jurisdiction and the maintainability of the complaints. The insistence on the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor was found to be unjustified. The Court also took exception to certain recommendations made by the NCSC in its report, which were deemed impermissible and contemptuous. The writ petitions were disposed of with observations, noting that the summons and warrants had lost their relevance as the NCSC had already submitted its report to the Government of India.