Delhi High Court: NCSC Cannot Direct Registration of FIR, Only Recommend Enquiry.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has no authority to direct registration of an FIR, and can only recommend an enquiry into complaints under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the NCSC’s order dated 05.01.2018, recommending action against Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials for alleged caste abuse of a street vendor, was merely directory and not mandatory. The writ petition filed by DDA to set aside the NCSC order was accordingly disposed of with the clarification that the police may hold an enquiry as per law.

Background:

1. The petitioner Delhi Development Authority (DDA) challenged an order dated 05.01.2018 of the NCSC, which directed registration of an FIR against DDA officials and restoration of vending rights of Respondent No.1 – Raghav Paswan, a street vendor in Sector-6, Dwarka.
2. DDA argued that the NCSC exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing such directions and that Respondent No.1’s permission to vend had already been lawfully revoked following repeated court orders for eviction of street vendors.
3. Multiple court proceedings from 2015 to 2017 had upheld the DDA’s right to remove illegal vendors. Despite this, Respondent No.1 approached the NCSC alleging caste abuse and harassment by Executive Engineer Karamvir Singh Narwal.
4. Respondent No.1, in his counter-affidavit, alleged that Narwal extorted money from vendors, revoked his vending license without fair hearing, and used casteist slurs when he refused to comply. He argued that he was a lawfully permitted vendor and that the NCSC’s action was justified.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court examined the NCSC’s order, which recommended that the police take action against DDA officials and register a case under relevant provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the order did not specify any dates, incidents, or evidence of caste-based humiliation and was based on omnibus allegations.
3. It was emphasized that the NCSC has only recommendatory powers under Article 338 of the Constitution, enabling it to monitor safeguards and inquire into complaints, but not to issue binding directions for FIR registration.
4. Consequently, the Court held that the NCSC’s order is recommendatory, allowing the police to conduct an independent enquiry but not obligating FIR registration.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Article 226 & 227, Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction and supervisory powers of High Courts.
2. Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Inherent powers of High Court.
3. Article 338, Constitution of India – Powers, functions, and duties of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Protection against caste-based discrimination and atrocities.
5. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Regulation and protection of street vendors.

Decision:

1. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, holding that:
2. The NCSC’s order dated 05.01.2018 is not a directive for FIR registration but a recommendation for enquiry.
3. The police may conduct an enquiry as per legal procedure.
4. The DDA’s challenge thus fails on merits, as the NCSC did not exceed its recommendatory powers.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with clarification; no direction for FIR registration.

Citation: 2025:DHC:111025

Case: Delhi Development Authority v. Raghav Paswan & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025

Writ Petition (Crl.) No.: 795 of 2018