Calcutta High Court quashes SDO’s cancellation of seven ST certificates, orders State Scrutiny Committee review

The petitioners, siblings and children of Ainul Hoque, had obtained Scheduled Tribe (“ST”) certificates from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur, describing them as belonging to the “Bedia” tribe; the certificates were issued between 2005 and 2014.

Following complaints regarding the petitioners’ eligibility and their use of ST status, the Sub-Divisional Officer initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 (“1994 Act”) read with Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules, conducted local inquiries through the Block Development Officer, issued notices, and granted hearings.

The petitioners contended that the complaint and inquiry reports were not supplied to them and that the proceedings were initiated without reference to the State Scrutiny Committee.

Relying principally on the Block Development Officer’s reports, which allegedly identified the petitioners’ lineage as “Shershabadia,” an OBC community, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order dated 29 July 2026 cancelling, impounding or revoking the petitioners’ ST certificates and communicating the decision to concerned authorities.

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer could validly cancel, impound or revoke the petitioners’ ST certificates without referring the matter to, or obtaining a decision from, the State Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 8A of the 1994 Act?

2. Whether the impugned cancellation order was legally sustainable when it was based substantially on the Block Development Officer’s reports, without furnishing the relevant materials to the petitioners and without obtaining the proposed expert anthropological report?

3. Whether the State Scrutiny Committee possesses jurisdiction under Sections 8A(3)(c), (e) and (i) of the 1994 Act to examine the legality of cancellation proceedings undertaken by the certificate-issuing authority?

The Court applied Sections 5, 8A, 8B and 9 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, together with Rule 3 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995.

Section 5 authorises the prescribed authority to issue caste or tribe certificates after inquiry, while Section 9(1) permits the certificate-issuing authority to cancel, impound or revoke a certificate obtained through false information, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts or forgery; Section 9(2) empowers the State Scrutiny Committee to direct such cancellation.

Section 8A creates a high-powered State Scrutiny Committee empowered not only to verify social status but also to inquire into statutory contraventions, call for information and documents, examine persons, and issue directions to the certificate-issuing authority.

Relying on Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Court recognised the need for expert scrutiny mechanisms in cases involving allegedly wrongful issuance of social-status certificates.

Following Darvell Investment and Leasing (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2015 (2) CHN (Cal) 674, it held that Sections 8A(3)(c), (e) and (i) confer broad and independent jurisdiction on the State Scrutiny Committee to examine illegal or procedurally defective cancellation of caste or tribe certificates.

Although Section 9(1) conferred cancellation power on the certificate-issuing authority, the statutory scheme required the matter to be examined within the framework of the State Scrutiny Committee’s expert and supervisory jurisdiction.

The Sub-Divisional Officer acted solely on the Block Development Officer’s reports and did not forward the proceeding to the State Scrutiny Committee.

Further, the proposed expert identification and anthropological report from the Cultural Research Institute had not been received, yet the Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to decide the matter without it.

The petitioners also alleged, and the record indicated, that the complaint and inquiry reports relied upon against them had not been supplied, undermining their effective opportunity to answer the allegations.

In light of the Committee’s statutory powers under Section 8A(3) and the principle that social-status disputes should be examined by the specialised expert body, the Court found the cancellation proceedings procedurally and jurisdictionally defective.

The Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to refer the proceedings to the State Scrutiny Committee forthwith.

The Committee was directed to decide the issue of cancellation, impounding or revocation after providing the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the records.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.