1. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes issued a direction to stay a promotion process pending investigation into reservation contraventions. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1804
1996(8) Supreme 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and S.P. Bharucha, J.
All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13700 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9092 of 1993)
Decided on 31-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.S. Nambiar, Sr. Advocate, S.C. Paul, J.D.Jain, R.K. Azad, Santosh Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4 : S.K. Bisaria, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3 : R. Mohan, and R. Nedumaran, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Binu Tamta, Advocate for D.S. Mehra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes does not have the power to issue a direction in the nature of an interim injunction.
Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 338, Clauses (5) & (8)-Powers of National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Whether the Commission has the power to issue a direction in the nature of an interim injunction ?-(No)-Powers of a Civil Court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause 8 of Art. 338-Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks authority to issue such an order. (Paras 9 & 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Commission possesses the authority to issue interim injunctions based on its powers of a civil court under Article 338 of the Constitution. (Para 3 )
3. Powers of a civil court granted for investigation and inquiry are procedural tools and do not confer the status of a court or power to grant injunctions. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. The power of a civil court granted to a statutory commission for investigation purposes does not include the power to issue interim injunctions. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the High Court's finding that the Commission lacked the power to issue interim orders was upheld. (Para 10 )
6. Does the power of a civil court granted to the National Commission for SC/ST under Article 338 include the power to issue interim injunctions?
No. The powers of a civil court are granted specifically for investigating and inquiring into complaints. These procedural powers facilitate investigation but do not include the authority to grant temporary or permanent injunctions. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 )
7. Does having the powers of a civil court for specific purposes make a statutory commission a civil court for all purposes?
No. Granting specific procedural powers of a civil court to facilitate an inquiry does not convert the commission into a civil court or confer the general status of a court. (Para 6 , 8 )
8. What is the scope of the Commission's powers under Article 338(8) of the Constitution?
The Commission has the powers of a civil court specifically for summoning attendance, requiring discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, and requisitioning public records to facilitate investigations and inquiries. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
JUDGMENT
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. - Leave granted.
2. By a letter No. 9/D/SCTC/M (S)/93 dated March 4, 1993, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereafter referred to as the Commission ) directed the Executive Director of the Indian Overseas Bank, the respondent No. 3, thus:
"No. 9/D/SCTC/M(s)/93
4th March, 1993
Dear Shri K. Subramanian,
Please refer to the commission letter No. 9/D/SCTC/M/(S)/92 dated 18th Feb. 93 in the matter of contravention of Government Directives relating reservation for SC/ST in Indian Overseas Bank and Other matters adversely affecting their interests.
The commissioner had desired the reply of Bank within 7 days of said letter. It is a matter of concern that the reply from Bank has not reached the commission till date.
In view of the prima facie examination of the matter and considering the fact that the Bank is reportedly going ahead with the promotion process, the commission, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 8 of the constitution(Sixty-Fifth amendment) Act, 1990 hereby directs the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter.
The commission also direct for requisitioning of all records in custody of Bank relating to the said matter be produced before it. For this purpose you are requested to ascertain a date from my office.
Please advice compliance.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(B. Sammaiah)
Member"
It is a fact that when the letter was issued the respondent No. 3 was actually going through the process of deciding on promotion of various employees at various levels. On March 4, 1993 when the letter was written, the respondent No. 2 was perhaps not aware of the reply addressed to it by respondent No. 3 on the very day meeting all the queries raised in the letter dated February 18, 1993, which letter was perhaps written on the representation made by the President of the All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Association, the appellant before us, alleging grave injustice to its members in matters of promotion. In view of the letter of respondent No. 2 quoted above, respondent No. 3 issued a letter on the same day staying the promotion process. On March 6, 1993 the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association, the respondent No. 4, and respondents Nos. 5 to 8 who were candidates for selection for promotion filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1362 of 1993 praying for a Writ of Mandamus quashing the order dated March 4, 1993, staying the selection process. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition with the finding that the Commission had no power to issue interim orders like the one in question. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the Commission had the power to issue a direction in the nature of an interim injunction? The appellant supports the letter dated March 4, 1993 of the Commission of the facts of the case which supposedly justify the passing of an interim direction of the type contained in the letter dated March 4, 1993. The appellant refers to Article 338, clauses (5) & (8) of the Constitution introduced by the Constitution (Sixty Fifth Amendment) Act. 1990 to argue that the Commission had power to requisition public record and hence it could issue directions as if it enjoyed powers like a civil court for all purposes. Further the appellant contends that even a single member of the Commission has every authority to pass a direction on behalf of the entire Commission and hence the High Court was wrong in expressing the view that a single member of the Commission could not have issued that direction contained in the letter dated March 4, 1993. The appellant further contends th
