Limitation on Jurisdiction of National Commission for Scheduled Castes: Service Disputes Excluded from Atrocity Forum

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Karnataka High Court’s decision in The Mysore Education Society v. Sri Babu P. (2025 KHC 13035), delivered on 27 March 2025 by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. The case arises from a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (“NCSC” or “the Commission”) on a complaint of alleged caste‐based harassment. The petitioner‐employer, a registered educational society operating multiple institutions in Bengaluru, moved the High Court to quash the Commission’s inquiry on the ground that it was, in reality, a pure service dispute over leave, replacement and transfer of a Computer Technician, and hence beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“PoA Act”).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the NCSC proceedings (File No. 06/APCR/47/2023‐RU) on the following key points:

The dispute between the Society and its non-teaching employee was essentially a service matter—grant of leave, appointment of a replacement, the employee’s early return and eventual transfer under an existing cadre agreement.
The complaint to the Commission was a “misuse” of atrocity provisions, repackaging a routine employer–employee issue as caste‐based harassment.
Constitutional and judicial precedents establish that the NCSC, under Article 338 of the Constitution, has investigatory and advisory functions but is not a civil court or tribunal empowered to adjudicate service disputes or grant interim relief of the kind sought by the complainant.
In view of the lack of jurisdiction, the entire NCSC inquiry was quashed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606 – The Supreme Court held that, although Article 338(8) of the Constitution gives the Commission civil‐court–like powers to summon witnesses and requisition documents, it does not convert the Commission into a civil court or tribunal entitled to grant interim injunctions or fully adjudicate disputes.
Collector v. Ajit Jogi, (2011) 10 SCC 357 – The Court explained that the NCSC may inquire into deprivation of rights and safeguards, but cannot itself determine caste/tribe status or cancel caste certificates. Such matters must be referred to competent authorities.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

Scope of Article 338: Article 338, as amended by the Constitution (65th) Amendment Act 1990, provides for a five‐member National Commission with duties under clause 5. Clause 5(b) allows the Commission to “inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards,” while clause 8 grants it civil‐court–style powers to aid investigation. Neither clause converts the Commission into a judicial or adjudicatory body for service disputes.
Nature of the Dispute: The employee had been on leave, replaced, returned early, and was transferred under a 2017 “Code of Conduct and Professional Ethics” agreement that expressly provided for inter-institutional transfer. His subsequent petition alleging caste‐based harassment was a repackaging of a service conflict.
Misuse of Atrocity Forum: Allowing a service dispute to proceed before the NCSC would undermine the statutory scheme. The PoA Act and Article 338 are aimed at preventing and redressing genuine atrocities and systemic deprivation, not mediating routine employment conflicts.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

This decision clarifies and reinforces the following principles:

The NCSC’s jurisdiction is limited to investigating genuine deprivation of constitutional and statutory safeguards of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not adjudicating service disputes.
Employers and employees cannot circumvent ordinary labour and service jurisprudence by characterizing every workplace complaint as an atrocity or act of discrimination under the PoA Act.
Lower courts and administrative agencies must screen complaints to ensure alignment with Article 338’s mandate, avoiding undue expansion of the Commission’s functions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Atrocity Jurisdiction: Powers granted by the PoA Act to investigate serious offences (atrocities) committed against SC/ST persons—distinct from service or labour disputes.
Article 338 Commission vs. Civil Court: The Commission may summon witnesses, inspect records and recommend actions, but it does not adjudicate disputes or grant judicial relief like injunctions or damages.
Service Dispute: A conflict over terms and conditions of employment—leave, transfers, promotions—which falls under labour and service law rather than atrocity law.

5. Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s ruling in The Mysore Education Society v. Sri Babu P. is a landmark clarification on the boundary between the NCSC’s role under Article 338 and ordinary service adjudication. By quashing the Commission’s inquiry into a routine employer–employee dispute cloaked as caste atrocity, the Court preserved the integrity of both the PoA Act’s protective purpose and the established channels for resolving service grievances. This judgment will guide lower forums and litigants to distinguish genuine atrocity matters from manpower or administrative disputes, ensuring that the Commission’s valuable resources remain focused on combating real discrimination and deprivation faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.