IMPORTANT POINT
Power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 of Constitution does not entitle the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to hold an inquiry in regard to caste status of any particular individual, summon documents, and record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If such a complaint was received about deprivation of rights and safeguards, it would have to refer the matter to State Government or authority concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take necessary action.

JUDGMENT

R. V. Raveendran J. —

These four appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2006 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WP No.2080 of 2011. As the ranks of parties differ, they are referred to by their ranks in CA No.4069/2008.

2. The first respondent (Ajit P.K. Jogi) claimed that he belonged to a tribal community known as ‘Kanwar’, a notified Scheduled Tribe. He obtained social status/caste certificates from time to time, showing him as belonging to Kanwar-Scheduled Tribe, that is, certificate dated 6.6.1967 from the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 27.2.1984 by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 6.3.1986 by the Tehsildar, Pendra Road, certificate dated 12.1.1993 by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 11.8.1999 by Naib Tehsildar, Indore, certificate dated 8.1.2001 from the Addl. Collector, Bilaspur and certificate dated 30.9.2003 by Addl. Collector, Bilaspur. The first respondent was elected twice to Rajya Sabha and contested two parliamentary elections from Raigarh and Shahdol constituencies. He successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan Sabha constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief Minister and served in that capacity till December, 2002.

3. In the year 2001, the sixth respondent filed a complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (the third respondent herein, for short ‘Commission’) alleging that the first respondent was a Christian and that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe; and that he had obtained several false caste certificates showing him as belonging to ‘Kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He requested that appropriate action be taken in that behalf.

4. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the first respondent proposing to verify his caste certificate. The Commission referred the complaint received from the sixth respondent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh on 29.1.2001. The state government (fourth respondent) responded to the Commission stating that it had constituted a committee dated 27.2.2001 for verification of caste certificates and the reference received from the Commission had been transmitted to the Principal Secretary, Department for Welfare of SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities Welfare (fifth respondent) for necessary verification through the said Committee. The Commission thereafter summoned the Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh to appear before the Commission on 24.1.2001 with all documents relating to the caste status of the Chief Minister (first respondent). The Commission summoned the Principal Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department to appear on 18.5.2011 with the records. He responded and made available the instructions issued by the state government relating to verification of caste certificates. He submitted that having regard to the provision made by the state government for verification of caste certificate by a scrutiny committee, the Commission did not have jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate issued to the first respondent. The Commission felt that there was want of co-operation from the Government of Chhattisgarh and instructed its branch at Bhopal to ascertain the correct position and verify the caste claim of the first respondent. Apparently, the Bhopal office collected some material to show that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste (a backward class) and that he did not belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got elected as a MLA from a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes, based on a false caste certificate. On the basis of alleged material so collected, the Commission called upon the first respondent, vide notice dated 26.5.2001 to offer his explanation and also appear before t