State Scheduled Tribes Commission Lacks Jurisdiction to Verify Genuineness of Caste Certificates

The petitioner, a Government Teacher in Chhattisgarh, holds a caste certificate identifying him as "Gond" (Scheduled Tribe) issued by the Tehsildar in 2005 and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in 2007

In February 2021, the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission (Respondent No. 2) issued an impugned notice (Annexure P/1) directing the petitioner to appear and submit primary evidence regarding his caste status following a complaint of a forged certificate

The petitioner challenged the notice on the grounds that the Commission lacked the jurisdiction to verify the genuineness of a caste certificate, a power vested solely in specialized Scrutiny Committees

1. Whether the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (Commission) committed a jurisdictional error by issuing a notice to independently verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s caste certificate.

The court primarily applied the guidelines established in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, which mandated the constitution of specialized Caste Scrutiny Committees as the sole authorities for verifying the veracity of social status certificates

It further relied on Sections 4 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, which empowers District Level Committees to verify certificates

Additionally, the court cited Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi, (2011) 10 SCC 357, confirming that Commissions lack independent jurisdiction to conduct caste inquiries when a Scrutiny Committee exists

and the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Aayog Adhiniyam, 1995, which limits the Commission's functions to recommendatory and advisory roles

The court reasoned that the legal framework for caste verification is strictly centralized within Scrutiny Committees to prevent unauthorized bodies from depriving genuine candidates of constitutional benefits

While the 1995 Adhiniyam allows the Commission to act as a "watchdog," its powers are recommendatory; it may receive complaints but must forward them to the competent Scrutiny Committee rather than seeking primary evidence itself

The court found that by directing the petitioner to produce documents for a caste inquiry, the Commission overstepped its statutory boundaries

Following the precedent in Ajit P.K. Jogi, the court emphasized that even if the Commission intends to verify a complaint's veracity, it cannot delve into the merits of the caste status, as this jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the High-Level or District-Level Caste Scrutiny Committees

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 11.02.2021. The Writ Petition was allowed, clarifying that if the Commission receives a complaint regarding a forged certificate, its role is limited to forwarding the matter to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee as per the Act of 2013