Comment on the functions, duties and powers of the appropriate National Commission as laid down in Clauses (5), (8) and (9) of Article-338 of the Constitution. (2009)
The “appropriate” body is the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). Article 338 originally created only a Special Officer who could investigate and report. The 65th Amendment (1990) replaced him with a multi-member Commission for SCs and STs, and the 89th Amendment (2003) split it, giving STs Article 338A from 2004. The 102nd Amendment (2018) later removed backward classes from clause (10), leaving only the Anglo-Indian community there. Together, clauses (5), (8) and (9) give the Commission wide sight and a strong voice but no hand of its own.
Clause (5): six duties, from system to citizen
- (a) Investigate and monitor every safeguard for SCs under the Constitution, any law or any government order, and evaluate how it works. This is the systemic audit role.
- (b) Inquire into specific complaints of deprivation of rights. This is the grievance role and the bulk of the caseload.
- (c) Participate and advise on SC socio-economic planning and evaluate its progress.
- (d)–(e) Report to the President annually or whenever it thinks fit, and recommend measures for the Union or any state.
- (f) Discharge further functions the President specifies by rule, subject to parliamentary law.
The list is broad but largely declaratory. Only (b) reaches individual Dalits, and (d)–(e) matter only if the reports travel. Clause (6) requires tabling with a memorandum of action taken, including reasons for rejecting recommendations, yet tabling lags badly. The reports for 2020–21 and 2021–22 reached the President only in September 2023, years after the period covered.
Clause (8): a civil court for inquiry only
While acting under (5)(a) or (b), the Commission has all the powers of a civil court trying a suit. It can summon anyone from anywhere in India and examine them on oath, compel documents, take affidavits, requisition public records and issue commissions. It can make a Collector appear, but these are powers to gather evidence, not to decide:
- All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) held that it cannot grant injunctions.
- Mumbai Port Authority v. NCSC (28 July 2026), decided by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, set aside an NCSC direction to pay arrears to a reverted SC employee. The Court held its role “recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory”.
Clause (9): mandatory consultation
The Union and every state “shall consult” the Commission on all major policy matters affecting SCs. On paper this is the strongest clause, because it works before a policy is made rather than after harm. In practice it is the least honoured:
- “Major policy” is undefined, and no form or timing is prescribed.
- No policy has been invalidated for want of consultation.
- After State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) allowed SC sub-classification, the Commission was barely audible on state sub-quotas and the creamy-layer question, which are exactly what clause (9) contemplates.
Assessment
In Guillermo O’Donnell‘s terms, Article 338 builds an agency of horizontal accountability with answerability but no enforcement. That restraint is defensible: a body without adversarial procedure or appeal should not determine rights. The real defect lies in obligations on government that go unmet. Reports are tabled late and rarely debated, and consultation is treated as optional. Appointments carry no prescribed qualifications or removal protection, and the vice-chairpersonship was still reported vacant in December 2025.
Conclusion
Clauses (5), (8) and (9) make the NCSC a court of inquiry and a mandated adviser, not an enforcer. The remedy is not binding orders but binding process: time-bound tabling, mandatory debate of its reports in the parliamentary committee on SC and ST welfare, and a justiciable duty to consult.