Factual Background 

In the matter of Jayaraman v National Commission petition submitted by Jayaraman TN, who identified himself as a temple devotee. Even though 11 encroachers had received eviction notices from the HR&CE department, he stated that one of them had gone to the Commission and complained that he had been singled out by the department just because he belonged to the scheduled caste community. Counsel for the petitioner claimed that the Commission lacked the authority to grant such an injunction. Jayaraman demanded that the current order be overturned.

Analysis of Court Order 

An interim injunction order issued by the Commission prohibiting the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department from taking any further action in an anti-encroachment drive that the department had been conducting on a temple land was overturned by a Madras High Court bench led by Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy. The bench stated that such power cannot be inferred from Article 338(8) of the Constitution.

Although the National Commission for Scheduled Castes has the authority to look into any complaint it receives, the Madras High Court ruled that the Commission lacks the authority to issue either temporary or permanent injunctions. The department had been instructed by the Commission to keep things as they were and not to take any action without first consulting it. According to the bench, the Commission ignored the proper protocol when it made its order.

The Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling in the case of All India Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, stated that Article 338(8) of the Constitution did not give the Commission any specific or vivid authority to grant an order of interim injunction, was cited by the State government and the petitioner, and the High Court agreed. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the matter of the All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association and others, a new statute was established. The bench concluded that the Commission lacked the authority to issue the order of temporary injunction.