Ancestors’ migration to Bihar 125 years ago cannot bar reservation benefits in panchayat polls, Patna High Court rules

The petitioner was elected as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Sahuria in the 2021 Panchayat elections from a seat reserved for the Extremely Backward Class (“EBC”) category.

Respondent No. 9 challenged his election before the State Election Commission (“SEC”) under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, alleging that the petitioner actually belonged to the Sheikh community and had fraudulently obtained an EBC caste certificate.

Pursuant to an inquiry initiated through the Criminal Investigation Department, a three-member committee comprising police officials conducted local inquiries, examined villagers, relatives and public representatives, and verified the petitioner’s caste certificate with the Circle Officer.

Its report dated 31 December 2024 concluded that the petitioner belonged to the Teli (Muslim) caste.

The General Committee/Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a subsequent report dated 28 March 2025, communicated by Memo No. 6574 dated 11 April 2025, holding that the petitioner could not claim reservation in Bihar because his ancestors had migrated from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, and he had not produced sufficient documentary material apart from a hibbanama.

Relying on the subsequent report, the SEC, by order dated 25 June 2025 in Case No. 56 of 2023, set aside the petitioner’s election, holding that he was not an original resident of Bihar and had obtained the benefit of reservation on the basis of an incorrect caste certificate.

Whether the subsequent report of the General Committee/Caste Scrutiny Committee, issued after the earlier inquiry had found the petitioner to belong to the Teli (Muslim) caste, was legally sustainable?

Whether the petitioner could be denied the benefit of reservation for the post of Mukhiya on the ground that his ancestors had migrated from Uttar Pradesh and that he was allegedly not an “original resident” of Bihar?

Whether the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act, 1991, as amended by Bihar Act 15 of 2003, governed reservation for election to the post of Mukhiya under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006?

Whether the SEC was justified in setting aside the petitioner’s election and recommending action against the officials who issued his caste certificate?

The Court applied Section 15(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which governs reservation of seats for the posts of Mukhiya, read with Section 2(b), which adopts the list of Backward Classes specified in Annexure I to the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act, 1991.

The Court held that the election reservation was governed by the Panchayat Raj Act and not directly by the residence-based restriction introduced into Section 4(2) of the 1991 Act through Bihar Act 15 of 2003, which provides that candidates residing outside Bihar cannot claim reservation under that Act.

Under Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, a genuine and favourable scrutiny report ordinarily requires no further action, while the scrutiny committee’s order is final subject only to judicial review under Article 226.

Under the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, 2019 (4) PLJR 673, the SEC may examine pre- or post-election disqualification on the basis of unimpeachable material, but disputed questions of fact must be referred to a competent fact-finding body.

The Court also applied the principle that the SEC could not treat a caste certificate as incorrect without a supporting finding from the competent caste scrutiny authority.

The Court found that the first inquiry was a substantive fact-finding exercise: the committee had conducted local inquiries, examined several witnesses, and verified the caste certificate with the competent revenue authority before concluding that the petitioner belonged to the Teli (Muslim) caste.

The later report was not technically a review by the same committee, since it was prepared by a differently constituted departmental committee; however, it failed to properly consider the earlier categorical finding and reduced the issue to the petitioner’s production of a hibbanama.

Importantly, the later report did not find that the petitioner belonged to the Sheikh caste, did not declare the caste certificate false, and did not recommend its cancellation; it merely held that the petitioner was not entitled to reservation because of his ancestral migration from Uttar Pradesh.

The Court held that this reasoning was legally erroneous.

Reservation for election to the post of Mukhiya flows from Section 15(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

The 1991 Act is relevant only for identifying the list of Backward Classes under Section 2(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act; its residence restriction under Bihar Act 15 of 2003 could not be applied to invalidate the petitioner’s election.

Further, a person whose ancestors had migrated to Bihar three or four generations earlier and had resided there for approximately 125 years could not be treated as a person “residing out of the State of Bihar”.

Since the caste scrutiny authorities had not found the petitioner to be a Sheikh or cancelled his Teli (Muslim) certificate, the SEC had no adequate basis to hold that the certificate was incorrect or to recommend action against the issuing officials.

The SEC’s order dated 25 June 2025 in Case No. 56 of 2023 was likewise quashed because it relied on the same erroneous legal basis and unsupportedly treated the petitioner’s caste certificate as incorrect.

The writ petition was allowed, and both impugned proceedings were set aside.