The Scheduled Tribe Commission must afford the affected person a hearing before taking any adverse decision.

The petitioner, a Lecturer (LB) at Government Higher Secondary School, Hariharpur, challenged proceedings initiated after a complaint concerning the genuineness of her social-status/caste certificate.

She questioned the authority of the Collector to scrutinize her caste status, contending that such power lay with the competent Caste Scrutiny/Verification Committee under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013.

She also alleged that the District Education Officer and the school Principal had improperly furnished her personal information, violating Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The State submitted that the communication was addressed to the District Education Officer, merely sought documents and information pursuant to a complaint, and that no adverse or final order had been passed against the petitioner.

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the authorities for calling information and documents concerning the petitioner’s social status were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

2. Whether the furnishing of the petitioner’s personal information by the concerned education authorities violated Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. Whether the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog had statutory authority to call for documents and public records while examining the complaint.

Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 confers upon the Commission powers analogous to those of a civil court, including summoning persons, requiring discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, and requisitioning public records.

The Commission’s functions under Section 9 include protecting the constitutional and legal safeguards available to Scheduled Tribes and taking appropriate steps or making recommendations in that regard; however, its jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating ordinary service disputes.

The Court relied on Rajju Lal Dhruw v. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Another, WA No. 512 of 2017, decided on 2 August 2019, which characterized the Commission as a “watchdog” for the protection of Scheduled Tribe rights while recognizing the limits of its jurisdiction in service-related matters.

The petitioner’s reliance on the 2013 Social Status Certification Act and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was not finally adjudicated because no adverse or final order had yet been passed.

The Court found that the Commission had, at that stage, merely called for documents and information and had not rendered any adverse determination against the petitioner.

In view of Sections 9 and 10 of the 1995 Act, the Commission possessed authority to requisition public records and require production of documents while examining a complaint concerning Scheduled Tribe status.

Since the proceedings were preliminary and no final decision affecting the petitioner’s rights had been made, the Court declined to examine conclusively whether the Collector or other authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction or whether the disclosure of information violated Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Instead, it preserved the petitioner’s right to appear before the Commission, place relevant documents on record, and seek a hearing before any decision was taken.

The writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned Commission with an appropriate application and supporting documents.

If such an application was filed, the Commission was directed to consider it, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law, keeping in view its powers under Sections 9 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995.