Court holds State Scheduled Castes Commission cannot declare charge under SC/ST Act “proved” or direct FIR; role is limited to inquiry and recommendations.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a recommendation made by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Castes Commission that had directed registration of an FIR against an Assistant Professor after concluding that charges under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were proved.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, hearing WPC No. 3240 of 2021, held that the Commission had acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction. The Court observed that while the Commission may inquire into complaints, collect material, receive evidence and make recommendations, it has no adjudicatory power to determine whether a criminal offence is proved. That function lies exclusively within the domain of the criminal court.
The petition was filed by Mrigesh Kumar Yadav, an Assistant Professor posted at Government College, Barpali, Korba. According to the record, a complaint was made against him by a private respondent who alleged harassment in connection with a cheating incident during an examination. The complainant approached the State Scheduled Castes Commission, which issued notice to the petitioner and considered his reply. Despite the petitioner’s explanation and documents claiming the allegations had earlier been found false, the Commission passed a recommendation dated 16 March 2021 directing registration of an FIR.
The petitioner challenged the recommendation, arguing that the Commission had effectively adjudicated the criminal charge itself by recording that the offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act stood proved. He contended that such a finding amounted to usurping the role of a criminal court.
The State and the Commission defended the recommendation, submitting that the Commission had only made a recommendatory direction for legal action after examining the matter in detail. They argued that under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Castes Commission Act, 1995, the Commission is empowered to protect the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and its advice is ordinarily binding on the Government.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and Shridhar C. Shetty v. Additional Collector. These rulings reaffirmed that statutory commissions and similar bodies cannot go beyond the powers expressly conferred on them by law.
The Court noted that the Commission’s powers are limited to inquiry, collection of evidence and making recommendations for remedial action. It cannot return a finding that a criminal charge is “proved,” nor can it issue a direction that effectively substitutes for a judicial determination.
Finding that the impugned recommendation expressly recorded that the charge under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act was proved, the Court held that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Bottom Line :
Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Castes Commission has no adjudicatory power to hold that charge under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is proved and to direct registration of FIR; its role is only recommendatory and limited to inquiry and remedial measures.
Statutory provision(s): Section 9, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Castes Commission Act, 1995, Section 3(1), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Article 338, Constitution of India, 1950
Mrigesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984388
