Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 266
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 27412743 OF 2024
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles …..Appellant
@ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Others. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1. The present appeals arise out of impugned common
judgment and final order dated 08.06.2021 passed by Division
Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in three Writ
Petitions. Out of the said three petitions, Writ Petition No. 3370
of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2019 were preferred by
Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar (Respondents
herein), interalia seeking identical reliefs, i.e., issuance of writ of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 03.11.2017
passed by District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban
(hereinafter referred to as ) which
‘Scrutiny Committee’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2024.04.04
17:11:36 IST
Reason:
validated the caste claim of Appellant herein as ‘Mochi –
1
Scheduled Caste’ in Maharashtra. Conversely, Writ Petition
(Lodging) No. 9426 of 2020 was filed by Appellant herein seeking
writ of certiorari and setting aside the findings of Scrutiny
Committee, particularly in para 4 of order dated 03.11.2017 to
the extent of ‘nonconsideration’ of oldest documents submitted
by her, which as contended by her sustained and established her
caste claim. The Division Bench vide common impugned
judgment allowed the petitions of Anandra Vithoba Adsul and
Raju Shamrao Mankar and dismissed the petition preferred by
Appellant. The High Court quashed and setaside the order dated
03.11.2017 passed by Scrutiny Committee primarily on the
ground that the same was obtained fraudulently and cancelled
the caste certificate issued in favour of Appellant. The Division
Bench further imposed a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/ on the Appellant
and directed to surrender her caste certificate. Hence, the
present appeals.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The entire controversy revolves around the validation of
caste claim in favour of Appellant, on the anvil of which, the
Appellant contested the 2019 Parliamentary election from
2
Amravati constituency in Maharashtra as an independent
candidate on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and emerged as
winning candidate while defeating the other contesting
candidates including Anandra Vithoba Adsul (Respondent
herein). Aggrieved, Appellant’s candidature on the reserved seat
was assailed by other contesting candidates primarily on the
ground that she obtained the ‘MochiScheduled Caste’ certificate
from the authorities concerned by submitting forged and
fabricated documents. The genesis of the dispute is traceable
from year 2013, when various complaints were submitted against
Appellant before the Scrutiny Committee seeking cancellation of
the caste validity certificate issued in her favour by Deputy
Collector vide order dated 30.08.2013. From 2013 to 2017, the
proceedings continued and eventually, when the matter was
seized before High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 2014
preferred by one Raju Mankar, the High Court vide order dated
28.06.2017 setaside the caste validity certificate issued in favour
of Appellant and remanded the matter with directions to the
Scrutiny Committee to give opportunity of hearing to all the
parties and take decision in accordance with law.
3
3. In furtherance of remand by High Court vide order dated
28.06.2017, the matter was taken up by Scrutiny Committee,
and the parties duly contested their case. After hearing the
parties at length and having considered all the documents placed
on record, the Scrutiny Committee accepted the caste claim of
Appellant vide order 03.11.2017 predominantly on the basis of
two documents, i.e., (i) bonafide certificate dated 11.02.2014
issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce in the
name of Appellant’s grandfather mentioning his caste as ‘Sikh
Chamar’; and (ii) the Indenture of Tenancy of 1932 which
corroborated the Appellant’s claim of her forefathers having
migrated to Maharashtra from Punjab back in 1932 itself along
with proof of residence. Aggrieved from above, the parties filed
respective Writ Petitions and hence, the instant appeals.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta at the outset
contended that High Court erred in upsetting the detailed
findings of Scrutiny Committee in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India. High Court by invoking its
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari ought not to have
4
interfered in the matter since the Committee arrived at such
conclusion after having conducted extensive factfinding exercise.
He further submitted that the scope of exercise of jurisdiction in
such cases is limited to examination of orders passed by the
Courts/Forums below to see if such orders have been passed
without jurisdiction, or in excess of the jurisdiction or due to
failure of exercise of jurisdiction. Undisputedly, Scrutiny
Committee in the instant case, being a quasijudicial authority
exercised its jurisdiction under ‘Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, DeNotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
2000’, (hereinafter referred to as ) and adjudicated the
‘2000 Act’
claim. The factfinding exercise and assessment of documents fell
within the exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee and High
Court in supervisory jurisdiction dealt with the petitions akin a
statutory appeal. The roving inquiry conducted by High Court
was uncalled for, particularly when in the instant case there is no
allegation to the effect that Scrutiny Committee lacked
jurisdiction. The procedure as prescribed was duly followed by
the Scrutiny Committee and after due application of mind, the
5
claim of Appellant was validated. [See ‘Nagendra Nath Bora Vs.
The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and
Para 30 to 39 and 41;
Others., AIR 1958 SC 398’ – ‘Rajendra
Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, (2019) 20 SCC 143’ –
Para 85 to 87;
‘Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen
Workers’ Union and Another, 2000 (4) SCC 245’ – Para 17;
Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326 – Para
28]
5. So far as question of inadmissibility of documents
submitted by Appellant before Scrutiny Committee is concerned,
it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that those
documents carried a statutory presumption under Indian
Evidence Act as they were related to forefathers of Appellant and
belonged from preindependence era. Unless any adverse findings
were returned on those documents by Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny
Committee erred in not considering them and holding them as
inadmissible. [See ‘Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribal Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113’ – Para 22;
6
‘Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 909’ – Para 8 to 12]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS
6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal mainly
contested the case on the scope of interference with the
Scheduled Castes Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Presidential Order’ ) issued by President under Article 341 of
Constitution of India and argued that it is constitutionally
impossible to grant the caste certificate in favour of Appellant. He
submitted that in absence of specific caste (‘Ravidasia Mochi’ or
‘Sikh Chamar’) being originally mentioned in the said Presidential
Order for Maharashtra State, no caste certificate could have been
conferred at the first instance in favour of Appellant. He further
submitted that the issue of interfering with the Presidential Order
is no more resintegra and has been long back well settled by
catena of judgments passed by this Court including Constitution
Bench judgments [See ‘Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Seth
;
G.S. Medical College, (1990) 2 SCC 130’ ‘Action Committee
on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another
7
Vs. Union of India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244’ ; ‘State of
Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 4’ ] ,
wherein it has been categorically held that the Presidential Order
is to be read as it is and no further interpretation is permissible
by any authority to such order. The terminology used in the
Presidential Order is to be read verbatim and if a caste is
mentioned in the original Order, then only benefit of caste
certificate can be issued in favour of an applicant belonging from
one State and migrated to another. No kind of ‘prefix’ or ‘suffix’
can be taken into consideration to expand the ambit of
Presidential Order by any authority, and it is only the Parliament
which is competent by law to include or exclude a caste/tribe
from the list of notified Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
He further drew our attention to the extracts of Presidential
Order and submitted that neither ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ nor ‘Sikh
Chamar’ is mentioned or recognized therein. In such case, if a
caste has not been particularly mentioned or notified for a State,
then the benefit of recognition to an applicant belonging to a
caste notified for that particular State cannot be granted. What
cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. Lastly,
learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments on the note
8
that, once such is the situation where the Presidential Order
itself is a selfspeaking document, nothing survives in the case
for adjudication and no interference of this Court is called for.
7. The assisting learned counsel Mr. Shadan Farasat mainly
contended on the entirety of the facts and argued in support of
the observations made by High Court by demonstrating as to how
the Appellant obtained the caste claim certificate by submitting
multiple forged and fabricated documents. He submitted that a
fraud has been played by the Appellant on the authorities to get
her caste certificate by using ‘trial and error’ method by creating
multiple forged documents and submitting them to sustain her
claim, specifically when her initial documents in support of
‘Mochi’ caste were found to be forged and fabricated. He further
urged that, even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that
the documents are genuine in nature, then also the Appellant
cannot be granted the caste certificate for the reason that the
documents on the basis of which the Appellant sought benefit of
caste certificate are selfcontradictory in nature. He drew the
attention of this Court to the first claim submitted by the
Appellant where she claimed herself belonging to ‘Ravidasia
Mochi’ from Punjab State. Although the said documents were not
9
admitted by the Scrutiny Committee, however, the documents
showing the Appellant to be ‘Sikh Chamar’ were admitted and
intriguingly, she was granted a ‘Mochi’ caste certificate which had
cascading effect of tinkering with the Presidential Order as
neither ‘Sikh Chamar’ nor ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ is recognized as
Scheduled Caste for Maharashtra State therein. Hence, such an
exercise carried out by Scrutiny Committee by considering the
Appellant’s case as ‘SikhChamar’ or ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ even on
the surface of it as true for validating her caste claim, was
impermissible in law since neither ‘SikhChamar’ nor ‘Ravidasia
Mochi’ are present in the original Presidential Order of 1950 for
Maharashtra State.
8. To substantiate the above argument, he further placed
reliance primarily on the three documents submitted by
Appellant before the Scrutiny Committee, i.e., (i) her father’s
school leaving certificate; (ii) her father’s caste certificate; and (iii)
her selfschool leaving certificate. It is submitted that all the
above three documents were interpolated, forged and fabricated
to procure the caste validity certificate. So far as first document,
i.e., Appellant’s father school leaving certificate is concerned, the
Vigilance Cell submitted its report that on inspection it was
10
found that the concerned school never issued the said certificate.
Secondly, the Appellant’s father caste certificate itself stood
cancelled and confiscated by the Scrutiny Committee vide order
dated 03.11.2017. Though on the very same date, the Scrutiny
Committee validated the caste claim in favour of Appellant and
rejected the benefit of same caste to her father. Thirdly, the last
document, i.e., Appellant’s selfschool leaving certificate issued
by Kartikeya High School and Junior College, New Hall Road,
Kurla West, Mumbai, mentioning ‘Mochi’ under the religion
column in favour of Appellant, it is submitted that the said
change was done on 23.08.2013 under the political influence on
letter sent by Appellant’s husband who is a sitting Member of
Legislative Assembly from Badnera constituency in Amravati
district.
ANALYSIS
9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant to
highlight that the issue of procurement of caste certificate
through fraudulent means has been a longtime menace. In
absence of any mechanism prescribing the procedure, the
discretionary powers vested with authorities concerned have been
11
subject matter of multiple layers of litigation before Courts
throughout India. Eventually, the issue concerning the procedure
to be followed for adjudication of caste claims was considered in
detail by Constitution Bench of this Court in
‘Kumari Madhuri
Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241’ , wherein this
Court expressed grave concerns about the deprivation of benefits
to genuine candidates, especially when caste certificate has been
obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged documents and
social status. This Court laid emphasis on the need of the hour
to streamline the procedure for issuance of caste certificates,
their scrutiny and validation thereafter. Resultantly, this Court
exercising the powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India,
laid down exhaustive procedural guidelines in para 13 which is
reproduced below as thus –
13. ……..It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates
issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost
expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is
necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of
social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval,
which may be the following:
12
1. The application for grant of social status
certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub
Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy
Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued
by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or
Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the
case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn
and attested by a competent gazetted officer or
nongazetted officer with particulars of castes and
subcastes, tribe, tribal community, parts or
groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place
from which he originally hails from and other
particulars as may be prescribed by the
Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate
by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least
six months in advance before seeking admission
into educational institution or an appointment to a
post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a
Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an
Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher
in rank of the Director of the department
concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal
Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case
may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes
another officer who has intimate knowledge in the
verification and issuance of the social status
certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes,
the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge
13
in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts
of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of
Police in overall charge and such number of
Police Inspectors to investigate into the social
status claims. The Inspector would go to the local
place of residence and original place from which
the candidate hails and usually resides or in case
of migration to the town or city, the place from
which he originally hailed from. The vigilance
officer should personally verify and collect all the
facts of the social status claimed by the candidate
or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He
should also examine the school records, birth
registration, if any. He should also examine the
parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to
their caste etc. or such other persons who have
knowledge of the social status of the candidate
and then submit a report to the Directorate
together with all particulars as envisaged in the
pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes
relating to their peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode
of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial
of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal
communities concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report
from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for
social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or
spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the
14
Director concerned should issue showcause
notice supplying a copy of the report of the
vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered
post with acknowledgement due or through the
head of the educational institution concerned in
which the candidate is studying or employed. The
notice should indicate that the representation or
reply, if any, would be made within two weeks
from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no
case on request not more than 30 days from the
date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the
candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and
claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the
Director on receipt of such representation/reply
shall convene the committee and the
Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who
shall give reasonable opportunity to the
candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all
evidence in support of their claim. A public notice
by beat of drum or any other convenient mode
may be published in the village or locality and if
any person or association opposes such a claim,
an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given
to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in
person or through counsel, the Committee may
make such inquiry as it deems expedient and
consider the claims visàvis the objections raised
by the candidate or opponent and pass an
appropriate order with brief reasons in support
thereof.
15
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate
and found to be genuine and true, no further
action need be taken except where the report or
the particulars given are procured or found to be
false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter
event the same procedure as is envisaged in para
6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to
the parents/guardian also in case candidate is
minor to appear before the Committee with all
evidence in his or their support of the claim for the
social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously
as possible preferably by daytoday proceedings
within such period not exceeding two months. If
after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds
the claim to be false or spurious, they should
pass an order cancelling the certificate issued
and confiscate the same. It should communicate
within one month from the date of the conclusion
of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the
parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings,
and in the meanwhile the last date for admission
into an educational institution or appointment to
an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate
be admitted by the Principal or such other
authority competent in that behalf or appointed on
the basis of the social status certificate already
issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the
parent/guardian/candidate before the competent
16
officer or nonofficial and such admission or
appointment should be only provisional, subject to
the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny
Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final
and conclusive only subject to the proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other
authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as
expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ
petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is
disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further
appeal would lie against that order to the Division
Bench but subject to special leave under Article
136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status
claimed is found to be false, the
parent/guardian/the candidate should be
prosecuted for making false claim. If the
prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of
the accused, it could be regarded as an offence
involving moral turpitude, disqualification for
elective posts or offices under the State or the
Union or elections to any local body, legislature or
Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee holding that the certificate obtained
was false, on its cancellation and confiscation
17
simultaneously, it should be communicated to the
educational institution concerned or the
appointing authority by registered post with
acknowledgement due with a request to cancel
the admission or the appointment. The Principal
etc. of the educational institution responsible for
making the admission or the appointing authority,
should cancel the admission/appointment
without any further notice to the candidate and
debar the candidate from further study or
continue in office in a post.
In furtherance of the said guidelines, streamlined procedure
was formulated and State Acts were enacted to deal with caste
claim cases.
10. As the present case arises from Maharashtra, it is necessary
to deal with the respective State Act, i.e., the 2000 Act enacted
with effect from 18.10.2001 containing elaborative procedure and
mechanism for regulation and verification of caste claims. Since
the moot point in this case is arising from the verification and
issuance of caste validity certificate in favour of Appellant, it
becomes imperative to look into the relevant provisions of the Act,
in particular Section 6, Section 7 and Section 9, which are
reproduced below for ready reference –
18
Section 6 – Verification of Caste Certificate by
Scrutiny Committee.
(1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the
Official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for
verification of Caste Certificates issued by the
Competent Authorities under subsection (1) of section
4 specifying in the said notification the functions and
the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny
Committee or Committees.
(2) After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the
Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing
of the benefits or concessions provided to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category for
the purposes mentioned in section 3 may make an
application, well in time, in such form and in such
manner as may be prescribed, to the concerned
Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such Caste
Certificate and issue of a validity certificate.
(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State
Government, local authority, public sector
undertakings, educational institutions, Cooperative
Societies or any other Government aided institutions
shall, make an application in such form and in such
manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny
Committees for the verification of the Caste Certificate
and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person
selected for an appointment with the Government,
local authority, public sector undertakings,
19
educational institutions, Cooperative societies or any
other Government aided institutions who has not
obtain such certificate.
(4) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure
for verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to
the time limit for verification and grant of validity
certificate, as prescribed.
Section 7 – Confiscation and Cancellation of false
Certificate.
(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act,
a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Category has obtained a false
Caste Certificate to the effect that either himself or his
children belong to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the
Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise call
for the record and enquire into the correctness of such
certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate
was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by an order
cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such
procedure as prescribed, after giving the person
concerned an opportunity of being heard, and
communicate the same to the concerned person and
the concerned authority, if any.
(2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under
this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged
before any authority or court except the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20
Section 9 – Civil Court powers to Competent
Authority, Appellate Authority and Scrutiny
Committee.
(1) The Competent Authority, the Appellate Authority and
the Scrutiny Committee shall, while holding an
enquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a Civil
Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and in particular in respect of the
following matters, namely :—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of
any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any
document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy
thereof from any Court or office; and
(e) issuing Commissions for the examination of
witnesses or documents.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that power
to verify the correctness/validation of the caste certificate issued
by Competent Authority under Section 4 is vested with Scrutiny
Committee constituted under Section 6. Section 7 further
empowers the Scrutiny Committee with suo motu powers or
otherwise to call for record and enquire into correctness of a
caste certificate if it is of the opinion that such certificate was
21
obtained fraudulently and also vests the Committee with the
power to cancel and confiscate the certificate in question in
accordance with law. Such order of Scrutiny Committee as per
sub clause (2) is said to be final and protected from any challenge
before any authority except High Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. Furthermore, Section 9 confers all powers
on the Scrutiny Committee as exercised by Civil Court while
trying a suit as per Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
11. In furtherance of the aforesaid 2000 Act, the State of
Maharashtra further brought in force the ‘Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules,
2012’ (hereinafter referred to as ) , stipulating
‘2012 Rules’
detailed provisions regarding procedure for constitution of
Scrutiny Committee as well as the procedure to be followed by it
while dealing with the claims seeking validation of caste
certificate issued by Competent Authority. For the purpose of
case at hand, Rule 13, Rule 14 and Rule 17 are relevant and thus
are reproduced below for ready reference –
22
Rule 13 – Report of Vigilance Cell and Issues to be
dealt with.
(1) Vigilance Cell Officer(s) shall submit report upon
investigating into the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Caste converts to Buddhism, Denotified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category claim,
referred to it, –
(a) by visiting permanent place of residence and
conducting domestic inquiry; or
(b) by recording statements of respected and
responsible persons from concerned area,
including representatives of Local Self
Government, Police Patil, etc.; or
(c) by collecting information, as part of recording
statement, as regards to name, age,
educational qualification, occupation,
existing place of residence and information
regarding properties (existing and disposed)
of family members of applicant or claimant;
or
(d) by collecting information including the
sociological, anthropological and ethnological
(anthropological moorings and ethnological
kinship), genetical traits of the Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to
Buddhism, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category, if
any; or
23
(e) by personally visiting Office of the Competent
Authority or revenue or school or other
concerned offices.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision
of these rules, –
(a) the Vigilance Cell shall not record concluding
remark or opinion, since vigilance inquiry is
meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny
Committee and adjudication of Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to
Buddhism, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category
status is exclusive domain of the Scrutiny
Committee;
(b) finding recorded and opinion expressed, if
any, by the Vigilance Officer shall not be
binding on Scrutiny Committee nor could be
used as evidence, in support of Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to
Buddhism, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category
claim.
Rule 14 – Verification of Caste Certificate.
Any person desirous of availing of the benefits and
concessions provided to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Caste converts to Buddhism, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Categories for any of the purposes as
24
mentioned in Section 3 of the Act shall, invariably submit
an application in FORM–16 with an affidavit in FORM–3
and FORM–17 for students; FORM–18 with an affidavit in
FORM–3 and FORM–19 for employees or service purpose;
FORM–20 with an affidavit in FORM–3 and FORM–21 for
election purpose; or FORM–22 with an affidavit in FORM–3
and FORM–23 for other purpose, as per his requirement, to
the concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his
caste claim and issue of Caste Validity Certificate, well in
time :
Provided that, the Caste Certificate issued to migrant
from other State and Caste or Community Certificates
issued by Authorities of the States other than the State of
Maharashtra, shall not be verified by such Caste Scrutiny
Committee.
Rule 17 – Procedure of Scrutiny Committee.
(1) On receipt of application, the Scrutiny Committee
shall ensure that the application and the information
supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to
carry out scrutiny of the application.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
the claimant or applicant or complainant shall be
personally responsible for removal of objections
raised by Scrutiny Committee, if any, within two
weeks or within such extended period, which shall
not be more than six weeks, failing which the claim or
application or complaint shall be disposed of, by
appreciating available records and such decision may
be communicated to the applicant by the Scrutiny
Committee.
25
(3) The incomplete application may be rejected by
recording reasons.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, it
will be the sole responsibility of the claimant or
applicant to attend the dates of hearing, either
personally or through duly authorized representative.
(5) The roznama of the Scrutiny committee shall be self
evident as to what transpired on a particular day and
it shall be signed by all the members of the Scrutiny
Committee.
(6) If the Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the
statement of applicant or claimant submitted in the
form of Affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18
Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well
as other evidence and documents furnished along
with any application or proposal is satisfied, about
the genuineness of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Caste converts to Buddhism or Denotified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category claim the
scrutiny committee shall forthwith issue Validity
Certificate in FORM20 without enquiry by vigilance
cell.
(7) If the Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the
statement of applicant or claimant submitted in the
form of Affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18
Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well
as other evidence and documents furnished along
with any application or proposal, is of the opinion
that the documents do not satisfy or conclusively
prove the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste
26
converts to Buddhism or Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Classes
or Special Backward Category claim, the Scrutiny
Committee by mentioning the same in the roznama,
shall refer such case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying
out suitable inquiry, as is deemed fit, by the Scrutiny
Committee:
Provided that, findings recorded by the Vigilance
Cell shall not be binding on the Scrutiny Committee,
as the vigilance inquiry is meant for internal
assistance to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee shall record its reasons for discarding the
report of Vigilance Cell.
(8) The Vigilance Cell shall complete the inquiry within
six weeks, thereby making suitable inquiry, on all the
issues or as specifically directed by the Scrutiny
Committee.
(9) Vigilance Inquiry shall be made for respective
territorial area of jurisdiction of concerned Scrutiny
Committee.
(10) In case of those cases which are referred to Vigilance
Cell, upon considering the report submitted by
Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied
about the genuineness of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism or Denotified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category
claim of claimant or applicant, it shall be lawful to
decide the matter finally by its written decision, and
forward the copy of decision and Validity Certificate
27
in FORM–24, to the concerned parties or authority, by
preserving its scanned copy (in electronic form).
(11) (i) In case of those cases which are refereed to
Vigilance Cell, upon considering the report of
Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee is not
satisfied about the claim of the applicant, it shall call
upon the applicant to prove his Caste claim, by
discharging his burden, as contemplated under
Section 8 of the Act, by issuing a notice in FORM–25
coupled with copy of report of Vigilance Inquiry;
(ii) After issuance of notice, if applicant requests, by
way of written application, for copies of vigilance
inquiry report or any other document or prays for
adjournment, reasonable time for final hearing or for
submitting written submission, it may be granted;
(iii) After affording an opportunity of hearing, Scrutiny
Committee shall, –
(a) being satisfied regarding the genuineness of
the Caste claim, decide the matter finally,
upon appreciation of evidence, by its
reasoned decision, i.e., decision of committee
and issue Certificate of Validity, in FORM–
24; and forward the same to concerned
authorities within thirty days, by preserving
its scanned copy (in electronic form);
(b) being not satisfied about the genuineness of
the claim and veracity of the Caste
Certificate, it shall pass its decision, thereby
cancelling and confiscating the original Caste
Certificate and invalidating the Caste or
Tribe claim of the applicant or claimant;
28
(c) upon invalidation of Caste or Tribe claim, the
Caste Certificate under inquiry shall be
stamped as "cancelled and confiscated", and
forward the same along with copy of
decision, to the Competent Authority and
concerned parties, by preserving its scanned
copy (in electronic form);
(d) after conclusion of the hearing of the case,
the work of writing of the decision shall be
assigned to one of its members by the
Scrutiny Committee;
(e) in case of difference of opinion amongst the
members of Committee, on the main order of
majority, the dissenting member shall write
his separate order;
(f) The name of member of Committee to whom
work of writing final order was assigned,
shall be mentioned in the roznama.
Moreover, front page of final order shall
disclose the date of the order.
(12) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, it
is incumbent on the applicant to disclose all the true
and correct information, including disclosure of
adverse entries or material, failing which, it shall be
lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw adverse
inference.
(13) If the Scrutiny Committee finds and concludes that
the report of Vigilance Cell is false or unrealistic, it
shall record the reason in decision and direct
appropriate action as contemplated under Section 14,
read with Section 11 and 12 of the Act and also
29
recommend Departmental inquiry against such
Vigilance Officer:
Provided that, an opportunity of being heard be
granted to the concerned Vigilance Cell officer prior to
any direction for appropriate action. This hearing
shall be independent to adjudication of Caste or Tribe
claim.
12. A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and Rules of
2012 Rules, makes it clear that a detailed procedure has been
prescribed for the Scrutiny Committee to deal with the claim of
an applicant seeking validation of caste certificate issued by the
Competent Authority. The power to deal with such verification
has been specifically vested with Scrutiny Committee and it falls
within the exclusive domain of it in view of Rule 13(b) of 2012
Rules. For the purposes of verification, the Scrutiny Committee
has all the powers of Civil Court while trying a civil suit and it
can further take internal assistance of Vigilance Cell for
verification in those cases as and when needed by the Committee.
It is pertinent here to note that, as per Rule13(2)(b), the findings
recorded, and opinion expressed by the Vigilance Cell shall not be
binding on Scrutiny Committee and nor could be used in
evidence for the purpose of claim. Further, Rule 17(6) provides
that if the Scrutiny Committee upon appreciation of statement of
30
applicant in prescribed format as well as other evidence and
documents furnished along with it, is satisfied about the
genuineness of same, then it shall forthwith issue the validity
certificate in FORM–20 without enquiry by Vigilance Cell. In other
words, the said Rule provides for subjective satisfaction of the
Scrutiny Committee when a claim is made and does not mandate
verification in each case by the Vigilance Cell. At this juncture,
Section 7(2) of the 2000 Act also assumes significance. It fortifies
the exclusive domain of Scrutiny Committee and deals with the
finality of the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee under the
2000 Act stating that the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee
shall be final and it shall not be open to challenge before any
authority or Court except High Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. The said language used in sub clause (2)
clearly reflects the intention of legislature to ensure minimal
interference with the orders of Scrutiny Committee.
13. Now reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Scrutiny
Committee admitted the claim of Appellant vide order dated
03.11.2017 based on its subjective satisfaction regarding two
documents namely, (i) bonafide certificate issued by Khalsa
College of Arts, Science and Commerce in favour of Appellant’s
31
grandfather mentioning his caste as ‘SikhChamar’; and (ii) the
Indenture of Tenancy of year 1932 in favour of great grandfather
of Appellant as his residence proof, proving his migration from
Punjab to Maharashtra prior to issuance of Presidential Order in
1950. The Scrutiny Committee also extensively referred to
pedigree table of Appellant tracing the genealogy of caste of
Appellant’s forefathers as ‘Mochi’. The said fact was also affirmed
by Vigilance squad which made a personal site visit in Punjab
and confirmed the truthfulness/genuineness of the contents of
the pedigree documents from the locals as well as authorities
concerned. Although the said documents were not admitted by
the Scrutiny Committee for them not being in ‘complete form’,
however, notably these documents were neither objected nor
debated by the complainant. Be that as it may, once the Scrutiny
Committee after hearing the contesting parties and evaluating the
documents on record reached on conclusion based on its
satisfaction and application of mind, the question that arises for
consideration of this Court in the particular facts of this case is
that how far the High Court was justified in completely
overturning the findings of Scrutiny Committee in exercise of
32
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by re
appraisal of the entire evidence on record?
14. The entire sum and substance of the Respondents’
arguments before this Court and High Court is that the Appellant
has forged and fabricated the documents to obtain her caste
validity certificate. In our view, it is a disputed question of facts
and can only be sustained by leading evidence. Admittedly in the
present case, on remand by High Court, the parties appeared
before the Scrutiny Committee, filed objections and led evidence.
They were heard and after due consideration of all the material
brought on record, the Scrutiny Committee, delineated the
objections and passed the detailed order validating the caste
certificate of the Appellant primarily on the anvil of report
submitted by Vigilance Cell and report of home enquiry and also
held that other documents produced by the contesting parties are
inadmissible. So far as question of admissibility of bonafide
certificate dated 11.02.2014 issued in favour of Appellant’s
grandfather is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee recorded its
satisfaction and formed opinion that the said certificate is a
competent evidence and held it as admissible after verification of
the students’ original register which recorded the date of
33
admission of Appellant’s grandfather as 16.11.1946. The
complainants have not raised any oral or written objection
regarding this document before the Scrutiny Committee. The
primary grievance of the complainants before the Scrutiny
Committee was that they were not allowed to crossexamine the
VicePrincipal of the said college who came to present the original
record. However, the present case herein is not that the said
grievance was not considered by the Committee or that it had a
biased or favourable approach towards the applicant. A perusal
of the order passed by Scrutiny Committee reveals that the
request of complainants for crossexamination of VicePrincipal
was not accepted for the reason that the said person came as a
presenter of the original student register on behalf of Principal of
the college, and being representative, he does not automatically
become witness of the applicant.
15. Now, when the Scrutiny Committee which is principally
tasked with the factfinding exercise for validation of caste claim,
had applied its mind and reached a conclusion, then in such a
situation, whether a roving enquiry by High Court was required?
It is well settled that High Courts as well as Supreme Court
should refrain themselves from deeper probe into factual issues
34
like an appellate body unless the inferences made by the
concerned authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or
are impermissible in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the
order passed by Scrutiny Committee reflects due appreciation of
evidence and application of mind and in absence of any allegation
of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the findings of
Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained.
16.
In view of the above discussion, if we take a look at the
findings of the High Court in said perspective and deal with each
findings individually, it would rather burden the judgment
unnecessarily and therefore, we deem it appropriate to confine
our analysis only to those findings by which the High Court has
upset the reasonings adopted by Scrutiny Committee to admit
those two documents, i.e., the bonafide certificate of Appellant’s
grandfather and indenture of tenancy of year 1932 to allow the
claim of Appellant. With respect to bonafide certificate, the High
Court opined that the Scrutiny Committee did not deal with the
observations made by Vigilance Cell that the original student
register was not produced by the VicePrincipal for inspection
and that the handwriting and ink of the last two entries made in
the said register did not match. The High Court itself perused the
35
coloured photocopy of the last page of the register and affirmed
the difference in handwriting and the ink by appreciating the said
evidence. On the other hand, insofar as the indenture of tenancy
of year 1932 is concerned, the High Court in contradiction with
the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the alleged rent
agreement was relied upon by Appellant much later in time,
coupled with the fact that it did not make any sense for a
landlord and tenant in a private rent agreement to mention the
caste of tenant. The High Court further observed that to
substantiate the rent agreement, the Scrutiny Committee heavily
relied upon the affidavit of one Smt. Radha Adukiya, i.e., the
granddaughter of the erstwhile landlord who rented the property
in favour of Appellant’s grandfather. In the said affidavit, Smt.
Akudia deposed that her grandfather rented the property in
favour of Appellant’s grandfather and further identified his
signatures too. Smt. Akudiya at the time of deposition herself was
about 82 years of age and she recognized the signatures of her
grandfather on an agreement allegedly executed 55 years back. In
view of the same, the High Court was of the opinion that Scrutiny
Committee failed in not carrying out an enquiry in finding out the
authenticity of the said rent agreement. With these primary
36
findings, the High Court quashed and setaside the order of
Scrutiny Committee.
17. Having perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee
and findings recorded by it to reach its subjective satisfaction
with respect to claim of Appellant, at this juncture, if we look at
the whole exercise carried out by High Court from the perspective
of settled principles of law for invocation of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, particularly in relation of writ
of certiorari, it leaves us with no scope of doubt that the High
Court has clearly overstepped by reappreciating the evidence in
absence of any allegation of malafide or perversity. As fairly
settled by this Court in catena of judgments, the writ of certiorari
being a writ of high prerogative, should not be invoked on mere
asking. The purpose of a writ of certiorari for a superior Court is
not to review or reweigh the evidence to adjudicate unless
warranted. The jurisdiction is supervisory and the Court
exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an appellate court unless
the facts so warrant. It also ought not reappreciate the evidence
and substitute its own conclusion interfering with a finding
unless perverse. The High Court in a writ for certiorari should not
interfere when such challenge is on the ground of insufficiency or
37
adequacy of material to sustain the impugned finding.
Assessment of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence in the case at
hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scrutiny
Committee and reagitation of challenge on such grounds ought
not have been entertained by High Court in a routine manner.
18. As per the ratio of larger Bench judgment of this Court in
‘Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and Others., (2012) 1 SCC
333’ , it reveals that the Court while answering the question as to
whether the Civil Courts’ jurisdiction was rightly barred by
judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) , observed that a
Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court
or Tribunal, rather it is an administrative body which verifies the
fact, investigates into a specific caste claim and ascertains
whether the caste claim is correct or not. It was further observed
that permitting civil suits to challenge such proceedings with the
provisions of appeal and further appeals would defeat the
purpose of the scheme. However, such decisions were rightly
made available to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India ‘which may be within the parameters for
invoking the writ jurisdiction by High Court’ in the judgment of
38
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) . Though at the same time, the
said observation does not explicitly give a wide power in a writ of
certiorari which is not within the purview of issuance of such writ
merely because of decision of Scrutiny Committee is under
challenge.
19.
In sum and substance, the writ of certiorari is expended as
a remedy and is intended to cure jurisdictional error, if any,
committed by the Courts/forums below. It should not be used by
superior Court to substitute its own views by getting into fact
finding exercise unless warranted. [See
Central Council for
Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another Vs. Bikartan
Das and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine 996 – Para 51 and 52;
Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 –
Para 7]. At this juncture, it would also be profitable to refer
relevant extract from judgment delivered by this Court in ‘Indian
Overseas Bank’ (supra), wherein para 17, it was observed as
thus –
“ 17. ……..The findings of fact recorded by a factfinding
authority duly constituted for the purpose and which
ordinarily should be considered to have become final,
cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been
39
based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in
the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at
any rate, as long as they are based upon such materials
which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground
that there is yet another view which can be reasonably
and possibly undertaken…… ”
Such being the situation, in the instant case, the High
Court went into a probe regarding credibility of the opinion of the
Scrutiny Committee because the writ Court felt the need to
substitute it’s own views. In case if the findings of the Scrutiny
Committee are based on the materials specified under Rule 16
followed by its subjective satisfaction, then exercise of
jurisdiction under writ of certiorari to quash the order of
validation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee is unwarranted
and uncalled for.
20. In a recent reference in ‘Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
(supra), while answering the question as to
Swarakshan Samiti’
‘whether paramount importance should be given to the affinity test
while adjudicating upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste
certificate issued by a Competent Authority, or in other words,
whether the affinity test is a litmus test for deciding a caste claim’ ,
this Court observed that if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied
40
with the documents, it need not mechanically forward the same
to the Vigilance Cell for verification in a routine manner. Even as
per Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Rules, the Scrutiny Committee is not
required to send every document to Vigilance Cell. It is only when
the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied
with the material produced by the applicant, it may refer to
Vigilance Cell. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations
made by the High Court in the case at hand regarding not
sending the documents to Vigilance Cell is not justified.
21. Lastly, the documents which are furnished by an applicant
before the Scrutiny Committee are a reference point for the
Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste claim of an Applicant. In
such a case, where the Applicant is tracing the caste genealogy
based on documents from preindependence era, the task of
Scrutiny Committee is to validate or reject a claim of validity
certificate based on assessment of documents that are filed by
the Applicant. More so, the Scrutiny Committee under Rule 4(3)
of the 2012 Rules can even allow caste claim without any
supporting documents. Hence, as already discussed above, such
adjudication is kept within the exclusive domain of Scrutiny
Committee under Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules.
41
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that High Court inadvertently undertook an erroneous
exercise of appreciating evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India and swayed itself into a
roving inquiry which was not expected as per settled legal
position. At the cost of repetition, we again observe that under
Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules, the adjudication on the basis of the
documents falls solely within the domain of Scrutiny Committee
based on the inputs received from the Vigilance Cell. The
Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact finding
authority. The High Court ought not to have interfered, especially
when Scrutiny Committee had followed the due procedure under
Rule 12, 17 and 18 of the 2012 Rules and that there was nothing
perverse about a finding of fact.
23. In the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee duly considered
the documents placed before it and after due application of mind
on being satisfied, accorded reasons for accepting/validating the
caste claim of the Appellant herein while accepting/rejecting
other certain documents. The Scrutiny Committee heard all the
parties in detail complying with the principles of natural justice.
Hence, in our considered opinion, the order of Scrutiny
42
Committee did not merit any interference by the High Court in a
‘writ of certiorari’ under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
24. So far as question as to judicial scope to tinker with
Presidential Order is concerned, there is no quarrel that
Presidential Order cannot be amended directly or indirectly.
However, the whole argument of Respondents to the effect
interference by this Court would amount to fiddling with the
Presidential Order is not sustainable for the reason that, the case
of the Appellant neither calls for any inquiry into a subcaste nor
does it amend the Presidential Order. The Appellant had claimed
‘Mochi’, the Scrutiny Committee validated and granted the
‘Mochi’ caste certificate and ‘Mochi’ caste is clearly mentioned in
Entry 11 of the Presidential Order. The argument of the
Respondents that a reserved category in one State cannot be
granted benefit of reservation in another State has no bearing in
the present case since in the instant case, the Appellant did not
claim ‘Mochi’ caste based on her caste in some other State.
Rather, the claim was for ‘Mochi’ based on genealogical caste
history of Appellant’s forefathers. The Scrutiny Committee has
verified the claim of Appellant holding that Appellant belongs to
43
‘Mochi’ caste in accordance with Entry 11 of Presidential Order
as application to Maharashtra.
25. Accordingly, in the light of discussion made hereinabove
and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant
appeals stand allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the
High Court stands setaside. The validation order dated
03.11.2017 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is restored.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 04, 2024.
44