NCSC lacks jurisdiction over commercial transactions absent findings of caste-based harassment or rights deprivation.

Respondent No. 2, a borrower who defaulted on a loan from the Petitioner (State Bank of India), filed a complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) assailing recovery actions taken by the Bank

On 23.03.2022, the NCSC issued an order directing the registration of an FIR against the recovery agent, an investigation by the Director General of Police, Odisha, and a mandated amicable settlement of the dispute upon payment of Rs. 5,00,000 by the borrower

The Petitioner challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, contending that the NCSC lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate commercial aspects of a loan dispute and had transgressed its constitutional powers

1. Whether the NCSC has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and direct the settlement of disputes that are purely commercial in nature

2. Whether the NCSC exceeded its powers under Article 338 of the Constitution of India by directing the registration of an FIR and mandating a specific settlement amount

Article 338 of the Constitution of India, which defines the powers and functions of the NCSC

Rules of Procedures of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, 2009, specifically Rule 7.2(a)(vii), which empowers the Commission to act when the property or rights of Scheduled Castes are under "immediate threat"

Rule 7.4.1(f), which bars the Commission from taking up cases pending in courts

Judicial precedents including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jasvir Singh and National Seed Corporation Ltd. v. National Commission of ST and SC, which establish that the NCSC cannot adjudicate commercial matters or function as a substitute for civil courts

The court found that the impugned order failed to demonstrate how the directions were in furtherance of the NCSC's constitutional mandate under Article 338

The court noted that the NCSC essentially attempted to resolve a "simpliciter" commercial transaction without any specific finding that the borrower was being harassed or denied benefits specifically on account of her caste

While Respondent No. 1 argued that Rule 7.2(a)(vii) allowed for intervention in property matters, the court reasoned that such power is only triggered if there is an element of caste-based deprivation of rights

Since the NCSC’s order focused purely on the recovery and settlement of a commercial loan without establishing a link to caste-based discrimination, the court determined the Commission had acted without jurisdiction

The impugned order dated 23.03.2022 was set aside, and the matter was restored to the NCSC to re-evaluate the complaint. The NCSC was directed to reconsider the matter only in view of whether the dispute involved caste-based issues, while the personal appearance of the Bank’s higher officers was exempted in favor of an authorized representative