Bombay High Court upholds caste certificate cancellation, leaving councillor’s election retrospectively terminated under Maharashtra law

The Petitioner, elected Councillor from Ward No. 8 of a Municipal Council, held a caste certificate identifying her as “Kunbi” (OBC) and sought its validation.

Her supporting documents included her father’s school record and a Village Form 14 said to relate to her grandfather.

The Scrutiny Committee obtained an initial Vigilance Cell report that found the birth record in order, but later directed re-examination of that document.

After receiving a subsequent report adverse to the Petitioner and hearing her submissions, the Committee invalidated her caste certificate.

The Petitioner challenged that decision, principally alleging that the Committee had failed to give reasons for departing from the initial report.

She also sought to rely on an additional pre-Constitution document produced for the first time in the writ proceedings.

Whether the Scrutiny Committee could direct re-examination of a document and rely on a subsequent Vigilance Cell report without contravening Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Rules.

Whether the Court should remand the matter to allow the Petitioner to place an additional document before the Scrutiny Committee.

Whether the Petitioner could continue as Councillor after invalidation of her caste certificate.

Rule 17(7) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 provides that Vigilance Cell findings are not binding on the Scrutiny Committee and that the Committee must record reasons for discarding the Vigilance Cell report.

The Court held that the Committee may seek a further report to re-examine a document, and that the reasons requirement applies where the Committee discards the report as a whole, not where it obtains re-examination of a particular document and departs from an earlier finding on that document.

Section 6B of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, as amended with effect from 22 July 2026, provides an appeal against a Scrutiny Committee decision; Section 10(4) provides that invalidation of a caste certificate results in retrospective termination of the person’s election.

The Court also considered Ashwini Ramchandra Bhogam v. State of Maharashtra (Rule 17(7) and reasons for discarding a report), Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (reasons as an essential component of decisions), Vaishali Baban Dhumal v. State of Maharashtra (re-inquiry must be reasoned and procedurally fair), and Vishakha Sharad Raut v. State of Maharashtra (use of an appeal to tender further material).

The Court found that the Committee had not discarded the entire initial Vigilance Cell report; it had directed re-examination of the grandfather’s Form 14 after considering the parties’ submissions.

The subsequent report was disclosed to the Petitioner, who was permitted to respond, and the Committee considered her say before reaching its decision.

The Court also independently observed that the Form 14 showed rewriting, cancellation and a change of ink, and found no infirmity in the Committee’s reliance on the subsequent report.

It therefore distinguished the authorities concerning rejection of an entire favourable report.

The Court declined to remand the matter to consider the additional document, noting its finding that the Form 14 relied upon by the Petitioner was fabricated and that the Petitioner had relied on a fabricated document and tampered genealogy.

It also recorded that no relevant appellate procedures had been issued for OBC appeals, while observing that the Section 6B appellate remedy would ordinarily have to be exhausted before approaching the High Court.

It declined to remand the matter for consideration of the newly produced document and held that, under Section 10(4), the Petitioner could not claim continuation as Councillor following invalidation of her caste certificate.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.