Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1063 - HC - Indian LawsCharges 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.
|