Disposed¶64

Kumari Renukamba v. the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/20660/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; WP No. 20660 of 2022 (GM-RES); M.G.S. Kamal J.; decided 06-01-2026; Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 2002; Section 8(a) and 8(b) powers; inquiry into specific complaints of deprivation of rights and safeguards; summons issued by Commission; Complaint Atrocity/CR-199/2021-22; BBMP Senior Health Inspector and Assistant Executive Engineer; Pourakarmikas' complaint of ill-treatment and harassment; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; quashing sought; preliminary stage of proceedings; no merits opinion; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No interference; petition disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise all contentions available and seek appropriate relief before the respondent-commission. ¶64

Kumari Renukamba Vs the Karnataka State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference; petition disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise all contentions available and seek appropriate relief before the respondent-commission.

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-commission constituted under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 had the power to investigate the complaint and issue summons to the petitioners. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The respondent-commission constituted under the Act, 2002 is vested with the statutory power to investigate or inquire into the allegations made in the specific complaint regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of employees belonging to the community.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Since the commission is statutorily vested with the power to investigate/inquire, the petitioners cannot contend that the respondent-commission had no right of issuing summons.

¶56

Key takeaways

The proceedings before the respondent-commission are at a preliminary stage and it is open to the petitioners to furnish details and documents for consideration by the commission.ratio¶57
The cause title of the complaint filed before the respondent-commission specifically refers to petitioner No.2 having been arrayed as respondent No.2 therein; hence the contention of there being no reference to petitioner No.2 fails.ratio¶62
Whether any specific allegations against petitioner No.2 amount to an offence under the Act, 2002 is a matter subject to investigation, and the Court sees no ground to interfere at this juncture.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), WP No. 20660 of 2022 (GM-RES), decided 06.01.2026: Two BBMP officials challenged, under Articles 226 and 227, the initiation of proceedings in Complaint No.Atrocity/CR-199/2021-22 and the summons dated 23.08.2022 issued by the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes on a complaint dated 20.12.2021 by respondents 2 to 6 alleging ill-treatment and harassment by petitioner No.1. HELD: the Commission, constituted under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002, is vested with the statutory power under Sections 8(a) and (b) to investigate and inquire into specific complaints of deprivation of rights and safeguards, and the petitioners cannot contend that it had no right to issue summons; the complaint's statement contains specific allegations of harassment by petitioner No.1; proceedings are at a preliminary stage where petitioners may furnish details and documents; the cause title of the complaint arrays petitioner No.2 as respondent No.2 therein, and whether specific allegations against him constitute an offence under the Act, 2002 is subject to investigation. No opinion was expressed on the merits; the petition was disposed of with liberty to raise all contentions before the Commission.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 20660 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KUMARI RENUKAMBA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O RADHAKRISHNAIAH SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR

¶11

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. JAVEED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SHAIK MAHABOOB A ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE SHIVAJINAGAR RANGE SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES ARAVIND BHAVAN NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶22

SMT NAGARATHNA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O V. JAYARAJ NO.4/2, 2^ND CROSS RECT LAYOUT, BLOSSOM SCHOOL LAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD BANGALORE-560 020.

¶23

SMT MEENAKSHI W/O ARMUGAM, NO.86/97, 7^TH CROSS 7^TH MAIN ROAD, AMBEDKARNAGAR BANGALORE-560 021.

¶24

SMT MURUGAMMA W/O SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.503, II MAIN ROAD RISALDAR STREET SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020.

¶25

SMT RAMASUBBAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O MUTHYALAPPA NO.503, II MAIN ROAD RISALDAR STREET SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020.

¶26

SRI ARMUGAM S/O CHAKRAVARTHI MAJOR, NO.86/97, 7^TH CROSS 7^TH MAIN, AMBEDKARNAGAR BANGALORE-560 021.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT.B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. S. DORERAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 IN COMPLAINT NO.ATROCITY/CR-199/2021-22. QUASH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN COMPLAINT ATROCITY/CR-199/2021-22 AT ANNEXURE -D TO THE WRIT PETITION, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the

¶37

initiation of proceedings in complaint No.Atrocity/CR-119199/2021-22 on the file of respondent No.1 upon the complaint filed by respondents 2 to 6 under the provisions of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for short `Act, 2002).

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondents 2 to 6 are the Pourakarmikas of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Petitioner No.1 is working as a Senior Health Inspector while petitioner No.2 as Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP. He submits that the complaint dated 20.12.2021 came to be filed by respondents 2 to 6

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

before the respondent-commission alleging ill-treatment and harassment purportedly meted out by petitioner No.1 and three others. Pursuant to which petitioner No.1 herein has already submitted a reply as per Annexure-B. However without adverting to the same, the respondent-commission has issued summons dated 23.08.2022 to petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner No.2 as per Annexures-C and C1 respectively. He submits that the allegations made by respondents 2 to 6 are false and baseless only to tarnish the image of the petitioners. That the commission without adverting to the response submitted by the petitioner No.1 has proceeded to issue the impugned summons prejudging the case causing prejudice to the petitioners. He further submits that in the complaint at Annexure-A there is no whisper of any nature whatsoever made against petitioner No.2 by respondents 2 to 6 yet respondent No.1 has proceeded to issue summons without application of mind. On these grounds seeks quashing of the proceedings and summons issued thereof.

¶43

In response, learned AGA referring to the provisions specifically Section 8 of the Act, 2002 submits respondents 2 to

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

6 are the employees of BBMP working under the control and supervision of petitioners making allegations of ill treatment at the work place. As such, respondent-commission having jurisdiction, investigated the matter and issued summons based on the material averments found in the complaint at AnnexureA. The petitioners are not entitled to maintain the petition at this juncture as respondent-commission has not come to any conclusion. She also pointed out to the cause title of the complaint produced at Annexure-A wherein the name of the petitioner No.2 is specifically mentioned. Hence, she submits that contention of there being no reference to petitioner No.2 is baseless. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶48

Heard and perused the records.

¶49

Section 8(a) and (b) of the Act, 2002 reads as under:

¶50

"8(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the Constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and;

¶51

8(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities."

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Clearly the respondent-commission constituted under

¶56

the said Act is vested with the power to investigate and examine the working condition of the employees belonging to the said community upon specific complaint in respect of deprivation of any rights and safeguards. Statement enclosed to the complaint at Annexure-A found at pages 23 and 24 of the writ petition indicate that there are specific allegations of harassment meted out by petitioner No.1 and this Court do not find it appropriate to delve on the merits or otherwise of the same inasmuch as commission noted above is vested with the statutory power to investigate or inquire into the allegations made therein. The petitioners therefore cannot contend that the respondent-commission had no right of issuing summons.

¶57

Nonetheless the proceedings before the respondentcommission is at the preliminary stage and it is open for the petitioners to furnish the details and documents, if any, for consideration by the respondent-commission.

¶58

As regards, the other ground urged as to there being no averments made against petitioner No.2, as rightly pointed by learned AGA the cause title of the complaint filed before the

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:642 WP No. 20660 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

respondent-commission specifically refers to petitioner No.2 having been arrayed as respondent No.2 therein. Whether there is any specific allegations made against him of he committing any act amounting to an offence under the Act, 2002 or not is subject to investigation. In that view of the matter, this Court do not see any ground to interfere at this juncture.

¶63

It is made clear that no opinion or conclusion is arrived at on the merits or otherwise of the case. Matter is dealt with only in respect to power of respondent-commission issuing summons and nothing more.

¶64

No grounds made out to interfere at this stage. Petition is disposed of. Petitioners to raise all contentions that are available and seek appropriate relief before the respondentcommission.

¶65

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶66

SBN

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Kumari Renukamba v. the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Renukamba v. the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Mangala Gowri. M Vs Cholamandalam Investiment and Finance Company Limited

K. S. Ramanna Vs Public Information Officer

Mr Shabbeer Khan Vs Mohammedia Masjid

Sri H M Gangadharaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Geetha S N Vs the Managing Director

Rathnakar Bank Limited Vs the Tahsildar