Caste Scrutiny Committees Lack Statutory Authority to Review or Revisit Concluded Orders Granting Caste Validity Certificates

The petitioners in several connected writ petitions had previously been granted caste certificates by competent authorities, which were subsequently validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune

Following the issuance of these validity certificates, private respondents filed complaints/applications for review before the Committee. Purportedly exercising powers of review, the Scrutiny Committee passed orders on April 5, 2007, and May 22, 2007, setting aside its earlier orders and revoking the petitioners' caste validity certificates

The petitioners challenged these orders, contending that the Committee lacked the statutory jurisdiction to review its own final decisions once a validity certificate has been issued

The court primarily applied 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 Act, 2000 ("the Act")

Specifically, Section 7(2) of the Act mandates that orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee are final and can only be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

Under Section 9, the Committee is granted limited powers of a Civil Court, which notably excludes the power of review under Section 114 or Order 47 of the CPC

The court relied on the precedents of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje v. State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1013) and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2537), which established that the Committee becomes functus officio after issuing a validity certificate and possesses no inherent power of review even in cases of alleged fraud

The court reasoned that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is a creature of statute and can only exercise powers expressly conferred upon it. Since the Act does not provide for a power of review, the Committee cannot assume such jurisdiction

The court distinguished between "caste certificates" and "caste validity certificates," noting that while Section 7(1) allows the Committee to cancel a false caste certificate, it does not grant the power to review a validity certificate once granted

The court emphasized that Section 7(2) provides for the finality of the Committee’s decisions, making the High Court the exclusive forum for challenges

The court rejected the State's argument regarding "inherent jurisdiction" to review for fraud, holding that allowing such a power would lead to "monumental uncertainty" and "patent arbitrariness," potentially unsettling dozens of years of concluded titles

The court concluded that if a validity certificate is allegedly obtained by fraud, the only legal remedy is for the aggrieved party to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226

The court held that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and were a nullity. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the orders dated April 5, 2007, and May 22, 2007, and made the Writ Petitions absolute