District Level Committees lack jurisdiction to cancel caste certificates; such power vests exclusively with High Power Certification Scrutiny Committees.

The petitioner, appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in 2002 under the Scheduled Tribe category, currently serves as a Principal in Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

Based on a complaint by Respondent No. 9 regarding the petitioner’s 'Mannewar' caste status, the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee (DLCS Committee), Bijapur, conducted an inquiry.

On 18.11.2025, the DLCS Committee issued an order (Annexure P/1) declaring the petitioner’s caste certificate "doubtful/wrong" and cancelled the certificate issued by the Tahsildar in 1992.

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition, arguing that the DLCS Committee exceeded its statutory jurisdiction.

1. Whether the District Level Certificates Verification Committee possesses the legal authority to cancel a caste/social status certificate under the Act of 2013

2. Whether the findings and the subsequent cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate by the DLCS Committee were in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013.

Specifically, Section 6 mandates that if a DLCS Committee finds prima facie reason to believe a certificate was wrongfully obtained, it must refer its findings to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee (HPCS Committee).

Section 7 empowers the HPCS Committee to conduct inquiries into such references.

Crucially, Section 8 vests the exclusive power to cancel and confiscate a false social status certificate solely in the HPCS Committee, rather than the District Level Committee.

The Court examined the impugned order and found that the DLCS Committee failed to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the petitioner's caste, merely labeling it as "doubtful".

Instead of referring the matter to the HPCS Committee as required under Section 6(3) of the Act of 2013, the DLCS Committee unilaterally cancelled the certificate.

The Court held that this action was ultra vires because the statutory scheme clearly distinguishes between the "referring authority" (DLCS) and the "cancelling authority" (HPCS).

The State counsel conceded that the power to cancel resides exclusively with the HPCS Committee under Section 8.

Consequently, the DLCS Committee's order was found to be in direct violation of the law.

The matter was remitted back to the DLCS Committee, Bijapur, with a direction to refer the case to the HPCS Committee under Section 6(3) of the Act of 2013.

The Court further ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pending the HPCS Committee's final decision, which must be made strictly in accordance with the law.