# DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR v. MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID

- **Citation:** [2019] 15 S.C.R. 685
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-10-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2723 of 2015
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K. M. Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dist-collector-satara-anr-v-mangesh-nivrutti-kashid-33885
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

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:
Notification dated 30.7.2011 issued by the Social Justice, Special
Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra, in exercise of
powers under s.6(1) of Act of 2000 - In terms of the Notification,
35 district level committees were constituted to verify caste
certificates of candidates who wished to contest the elections to
local authorities - High Court quashed the said Notification with
direction that for both, the matters of constitution of the Committee
and operation of the Vigilance Cell, the directions in Kumari
Madhuri Patil* case have to be given full effect to - The original
certificates issued in pursuance of Government Resolution of
30.07.2011 were directed to be recovered from the respective
persons and destroyed forthwith - However, said judgment was
stayed and as a result these certificates, issued under the said
circular, continued to hold the field and the process followed as
per the Act of 2000, read with the Rules of 2003 - On 31.8.2012,
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 were notified - Once
again, the discretion was left to the Scrutiny Committee to solicit a
report of vigilance inquiry, not making it mandatory - The issue
pertained to the interregnum period between Notification issued
on 30.07.2011 and Rules notified on 31.08.2012 - Challenge was
to the Caste Validity Certificates granted to the candidates on the
ground that the said certificates were obtained by fraud, with a
prayer for direction to the Election Commission to reject the
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 685
685
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
nomination papers of such candidates - Held: Requirement of
verification of certificates by the Vigilance Cell was provided to
be mandatory in terms of judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil* -
However, as implemented for the interregnum period in question,
the input from Vigilance Cell was obtained only selectively - Under
the Rules of 2012, the requirement was not made mandatory, but
whenever the Scrutiny Committee felt it could solicit a report of
vigilance inquiry and not in all cases - The exercise of issuance
of certificates cannot be a casual one - The Scrutiny Committee
constituted to issue the validity certificates must thus at the slightest
doubt take the assistance of the Vigilance Cell to ensure that nonentitled persons do not get benefit at the cost of entitled persons
- The certificates in question were alleged to have been obtained
without vigilance reports and within a very short period of time -
The exercise carried out in the interregnum period between
30.7.2011 and 31.8.2012 clearly showed that no proper exercise
was carried out or could have been carried out given the time
frame within which the caste certificates were issued - Thus, the
exercise so undertaken cannot be upheld and has to be quashed
with the direction to carry out the said exercise afresh - It will be
for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to carry out the aforesaid exercise
while notifying the parties concerned through appropriate public
notices - These directions were to ensure the objectives of the Act
of 2000 i.e. issuance of certificates only to entitled persons,
through a proper exercise, with proper assistance from the Vigilance
Cell - Constitution of India - Art. 142 - 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.
Constitution of India: Arts.141 and 142 - Guidelines/
Directions - Filling up the vaccum - In the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,319 of 60,538. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39319 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
685
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR.
v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID
(Civil Appeal No. 2723 of 2015)
OCTOBER 01, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
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:
Notification dated 30.7.2011 issued by the Social Justice, Special
Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra, in exercise of
powers under s.6(1) of Act of 2000 - In terms of the Notification,
35 district level committees were constituted to verify caste
certificates of candidates who wished to contest the elections to
local authorities - High Court quashed the said Notification with
direction that for both, the matters of constitution of the Committee
and operation of the Vigilance Cell, the directions in Kumari
Madhuri Patil* case have to be given full effect to - The original
certificates issued in pursuance of Government Resolution of
30.07.2011 were directed to be recovered from the respective
persons and destroyed forthwith - However, said judgment was
stayed and as a result these certificates, issued under the said
circular, continued to hold the field and the process followed as
per the Act of 2000, read with the Rules of 2003 - On 31.8.2012,
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 were notified - Once
again, the discretion was left to the Scrutiny Committee to solicit a
report of vigilance inquiry, not making it mandatory - The issue
pertained to the interregnum period between Notification issued
on 30.07.2011 and Rules notified on 31.08.2012 - Challenge was
to the Caste Validity Certificates granted to the candidates on the
ground that the said certificates were obtained by fraud, with a
prayer for direction to the Election Commission to reject the
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 685
685
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
nomination papers of such candidates - Held: Requirement of
verification of certificates by the Vigilance Cell was provided to
be mandatory in terms of judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil* -
However, as implemented for the interregnum period in question,
the input from Vigilance Cell was obtained only selectively - Under
the Rules of 2012, the requirement was not made mandatory, but
whenever the Scrutiny Committee felt it could solicit a report of
vigilance inquiry and not in all cases - The exercise of issuance
of certificates cannot be a casual one - The Scrutiny Committee
constituted to issue the validity certificates must thus at the slightest
doubt take the assistance of the Vigilance Cell to ensure that nonentitled persons do not get benefit at the cost of entitled persons
- The certificates in question were alleged to have been obtained
without vigilance reports and within a very short period of time -
The exercise carried out in the interregnum period between
30.7.2011 and 31.8.2012 clearly showed that no proper exercise
was carried out or could have been carried out given the time
frame within which the caste certificates were issued - Thus, the
exercise so undertaken cannot be upheld and has to be quashed
with the direction to carry out the said exercise afresh - It will be
for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to carry out the aforesaid exercise
while notifying the parties concerned through appropriate public
notices - These directions were to ensure the objectives of the Act
of 2000 i.e. issuance of certificates only to entitled persons,
through a proper exercise, with proper assistance from the Vigilance
Cell - Constitution of India - Art. 142 - 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.
Constitution of India: Arts.141 and 142 - Guidelines/
Directions - Filling up the vaccum - In the absence of legislation
- Held: The purpose of any judicial legislation is to fill a vacuum
- It does not preclude legislators from enacting law - There is ample
power conferred by Art.32, read with Art.142 of the Constitution
to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Art.141
of the Constitution, by issuing directions to fill the vacuum till such
time as the legislature steps in to cover the gaps, or the executive
discharges its role - Judicial legislation.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
687
Administrative Law: Subordinate legislation/delegated
legislation - Notification dated 30.7.2011 issued by the Social
Justice, Special Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra,
in exercise of powers under s.6(1) of Act of 2000 - Challenged
on the ground that the Notification was not in conformity with
directions contained in Kumari Madhuri Patil* case - Held: A
reading of Notification makes it clear that the Caste Scrutiny
Committees were constituted to facilitate verification of Caste
Certificates of the candidates willing to contest for elective post
in any local authority - The composition of the Committee was
made in pursuance of the specific statutory power in terms of s.6(1)
of the Act of 2000 - As far as a delegated legislation or a
notification issued under statutory powers is concerned, the
challenge can be laid only in terms of well settled principles i.e.
either the rule or notification is contrary to the provisions of the
Act, or contrary to any provision of the Constitution, or brings
about a conflict which is required to be resolved by the Court -
The challenge in this case is not based on any of these parameters,
but is simply on the ground that the notification is not in exact
conformity with the directions issued by this Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil case - Such a challenge would not be sustainable
in view of the settled principles of examining such subordinate
legislation/statutory notifications - Thus, once the legislature lays
down a legislative policy, and confers discretion upon the
administrative agency for the execution of such policy, it is up to
the agency to work out the details within the framework of the
policy - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Composition of Scrutiny Committee
1.1 The impugned order is predicated on a reasoning, as
if the judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case, as modified
by the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II case, was engraved in stone, and
it was not open for the legislature to have enacted law at variance
with, or in derogation of the same. The purpose of any judicial
legislation is to fill a vacuum. It does not preclude legislators
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
from enacting law. Judicial activism or judicial legislation
emerged on account of an existence of vacuum. It was opined
that the Supreme Court would not be constrained to fold its
hands in despair and plead its inability to help the citizen who
has come before it for judicial redressal in such a situation. It
has been found by this Court that there is ample power conferred
by Article 32, read with Article 142 of the Constitution to make
orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 of
the Constitution, by issuing directions to fill the vacuum till such
time as the legislature steps in to cover the gaps, or the
executive discharges its role. [Paras 24, 25] [706-B-E]
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (1994) 6
SCC 241 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 50 ; Kumari Madhuri
Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development,
Thane & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 437 : [1997] 3 SCR
1056 ; (Kumari Madhuri Patil-II) - relied on.
1.2 Insofar as the composition of the Scrutiny Committee
is concerned, no doubt the composition of the said Committee
was directed specifically in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case, and
modified by the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II case. The occasion for
modification also arose on account of large number of cases to
be dealt with. So long as the procedure made under the
notification or legislation meets the requirement of law, it cannot
be said that the Committee has to be only as per the directions
of this Court. Post the Rules of 2012 being notified, there is
really no problem. It is not in doubt that the power to issue the
Notification dated 30.7.2011 did exist, in terms of Section 6(1)
of the Act of 2000. As far as a delegated legislation or a
notification issued under statutory powers is concerned, the
challenge can be laid only in terms of well settled principles.
Either the rule or notification is contrary to the provisions of
the Act, or contrary to any provision of the Constitution, or brings
about a conflict which is required to be resolved by the Court.
The challenge in this case is not based on any of these
parameters, but is simply on the ground that the notification is
not in exact conformity with the directions issued by this Court
in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case. Such a challenge would not
be sustainable in view of the settled principles of examining such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
689
subordinate legislation/statutory notifications. [Para 26] [707-FG; 708-A-D]
2.1 The second part of the challenge relates to the
requirement of verification of the certificates by the Vigilance
Cell. This was provided to be mandatory, in terms of the
judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case. The enormity of the
problems faced by the High Court, through multifarious petitions
arising qua the unverified issuance of such certificates, possibly
persuaded the High Court to lay down stricter norms in this
behalf. However, as implemented for the interregnum period in
question, the input from the Vigilance Cell was obtained only
selectively. Under the Rules of 2012 also, the requirement is
not mandatory, but wherever the Scrutiny Committee feels it
"may" solicit a report of vigilance inquiry. The exercise of
issuance of the certificates cannot be a casual one. The Scrutiny
Committee constituted to issue the validity certificates must,
thus, at the slightest doubt take the assistance of the Vigilance
Cell to ensure that non-entitled persons do not get benefitted
at the cost of entitled persons. This is a process which will be
so followed under the Rules of 2012. [Para 27] [708-E-G; 709A-B]
2.2 The matter, however, cannot rest at this because the
existence of power and its exercise are two different aspects.
The view adopted by the High Court, appears to have been in
the context of the manner of exercise carried out by the Scrutiny
Committee in the given situation, and the casual manner in which
the assistance of Vigilance Cell was sought (or rather not
sought). On those aspects, the view of the High Court is correct.
During the interregnum period, between 30.7.2011 (when the
Notification was issued) and 31.8.2012 (when the Rules of 2012
were notified) no proper exercise could have been carried out,
or was carried out given the time frame within which the caste
certificates were issued. The objective was clear, i.e., to
somehow facilitate as many people as possible, as soon as
possible, to contest the elections. The troublesome aspect is
that the validity certificates are not only valid for that election,
but also for subsequent elections. They are not only valid for
educational purposes (except for some cases so restricted), but
also for all other purposes. These validity certificates can
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
possibly become the basis for issuance of further certificates to
the legal heirs. Thus, the exercise so undertaken cannot be
upheld and has to be quashed with the direction to carry out the
aforesaid exercise afresh. [Paras 28, 29] [709-C-F]
3. The fresh exercise has to be undertaken within a period
of six months i.e., on or before 31.3.2020. Till this exercise is
completed, the existing certificates issued for the interregnum
period would hold good. The exercise would have to be
undertaken in respect of all the certificates, except those cases
where the validity certificate was issued after verification by the
Vigilance Cell. In view of the case where the Vigilance Cell
opined otherwise and yet a caste validity certificate has been
issued, the exercise may be carried out afresh. Thus, wherever
there is an adverse report of the Vigilance Cell and yet caste
validity certificate has been issued the exercise has to be carried
out afresh. Those, whose caste certificates were rejected by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, without any Vigilance Inquiry, may
be given the right to appeal against such rejection, as per Rule
7 of the 2012 Rules. [Para 31] [710-A-C]
Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC
333 : [2011] 15 SCR 1092 ; Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 161 : [1984]
2 SCR 67 ; Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595 ;
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 :
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 ; The Director of Tribal
Welfare, Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri & Anr. (1995)
4 SCC 32 : [1995] 3 SCR 430 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 50
relied on
Para 2
[1997] 3 SCR 1056
relied on
Para 4
[2011] 15 SCR 1092
relied on
Para 11
[1984] 2 SCR 67
relied on
Para 25
[1997[ 6 Suppl. SCR 595
relied on
Para 25
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404
relied on
Para 25
[1995] 3 SCR 430
relied on
Para 25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
691
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2723
of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 853 of 2012.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2727, 2728, 2729, 2730-2731, 2732, 2734 of
2015.
Vinay Navare, B. H. Marlapalle, Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Jitendra
Mohan Sharma, Sr. Advs., Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Nishant R.
Katneshwarkar, Anoop Kandari, Pravin Satale, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi,
Aaditya A. Pande, K. N. Rai, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Ankolekar Gurudatta, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Sudhanshu S.
Choudhari, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Zaid Ali Subzposh, Tamim Qadri,
Saeed Qadri, Ms. Udita Singh, Shirish K. Deshpande, Rucha Pravin
Mandlik, Mohit Gautam, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Ms. Tanvi Kakar,
Ansh Pandey, Jhavhar Singh, Sandeep Singh, Ajit Sharma, Pranshu
Kaushal, Anil Kumar, Kunal Cheema, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha,
Ms. Aditi Parkhi, Rahul Chitnis, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Satyajit A.
Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Shobit Dwivedi, G. S. Gerwal, Hitesh
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Talwar, Naresh Kumar, C. S. N.
Mohan Rao, R. V. Kameshwaran, Gagan Gupta, Uday B. Dube,
Bhargava V. Desai, Vishwajit Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The freedom at midnight was followed by the framing of the
Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India (for short 'the
Constitution') took special care, given the social and economic scenario
of our country, to provide for certain special benefits and privileges for
persons from the under-privileged communities, i.e., the Scheduled
Castes (for short 'SCs') and the Scheduled Tribes (for short 'STs').
Thus, while prohibiting discrimination on grounds inter alia of race and
caste, under Article 15 of the Constitution, while providing for equality
of opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16 of the
Constitution, an enabling provision was made for providing reservation
to people of these categories. In fact, Article 17, abolishing
untouchability, was one more provision in this direction.
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
2. In the implementation of the aforesaid objectives, it became
necessary to issue caste certificates for obtaining employment and
admission to educational institutions. Unfortunately, this gave rise to vast
area of malpractice as non-entitled persons managed to obtain such
certificates for availing the benefits. This endemic problem forms the
basis for the jurisprudential discussion in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr.
v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors1(Kumari
Madhuri Patil).
3. The facts in Kumari Madhuri Patil2 case itself are an
illustration of this problem. The appellant before the Court was seeking
a Caste Certificate on the basis of a Caste Certificate obtained by her
sister, who was claiming on the basis of their father having obtained
caste certificate, certifying him to be of 'Hindu Koli' caste. On
investigation, the caste claims were found to be wrong and the
certificates issued to the appellant therein and her sister were cancelled.
This Court in the Kumari Madhuri Patil3 case, while discussing the
various provisions of the Constitution, emphasised that the State was
enjoined under our constitutional scheme to provide facilities and
opportunities to the SCs and STs for education and employment, so as
to result in economic improvement, resulting in excellence, equality of
status and the right to live in dignity. Thus, any admission wrongly gained,
or employment wrongly obtained, on the basis of a false social status
certificate automatically has the effect of depriving a genuine person
for whose benefit the rights have been conferred under the Constitution.
Simultaneously, in view of the reservation, a General Category candidate
loses the seat to an ineligible candidate, who really does not belong to
the SC/ST community. No proper procedure or legislation provided for
the checks and balances in issuance of these caste certificates and,
thus, in the Kumari Madhuri Patil4 case, it was deemed necessary
to issue directions to streamline the procedure for issuance of the social
status certificates. There were fifteen (15) directions issued, but the
two directions, which are relevant for the controversy raised in the
present appeals, are as under:
"4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of
three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any
1 (1994) 6 SCC 241
2 (supra)
3 (supra)
4 (supra)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
officer higher in rank of the Director of the department
concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/
Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the
case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate
knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status
certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research
Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal
communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting
of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and
such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social
status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of
residence and original place from which the candidate hails and
usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the
place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer
should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social
status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the
case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth
registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian
or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other
persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate
and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all
particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the
Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes
or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc."
4. The objective of issuing all these directions is enunciated in
para 14 of this judgment, which reads as under:
"14. Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the
undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State
on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false
social status or further continuance therein, every State
concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the
constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement
of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward
classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous
persons."
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
It appears that these directions from the date of their issuance,
on 2.9.1994 apparently seem to have worked well. The State of
Maharashtra sought a review of this order, limited to the aspect of
modification in the composition of the Scrutiny Committee, on account
of certain administrative exigencies. This request was acceded to in
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commr., Tribal
Development, Thane & Ors.5 (Kumari Madhuri Patil-II) in the
following terms:
"3. As regards prayer (b) read with direction No. (iv) of the
Order of this Court, we too appreciate the inconvenience caused
due to vast area of the State. Therefore, instead of one committee
of three officers, there will be three Scheduled Tribe/Caste
Scrutiny Committees comprising of five members with quorum
of three members, as suggested in para 4 of the directions, to
take a decision. At Pune, Nasik and Nagpur, six Caste Scrutiny
Committees for SCs, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and the Special Backward Category in
existence at Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, Amravati and
Nagpur would continue to scrutinise the certificates issued by
the respective officers and take a decision in that behalf. In this
regard, it is also suggested by Shri Dholakia, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant, that in case any certificate has been
wrongfully refused by the certificate issuing authority, the
aforestated Committees also would go into the question and
decide in that behalf, whether refusal was wrongful and in case
it finds that the refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to direct
the authority to grant the certificate.
4. With regard to prayer (c) also, we feel that the Caste Scrutiny
Committees for Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports
Department should comprise of Additional Commissioner
(Revenue) - Chairman of the Revenue Division concerned;
Divisional Social Welfare Officer-Member; and Research Officer
as a Welfare Officer-Member-Secretary to function in that
behalf."
5. It appears that with the passage of time, and on examining
the matter in issue, the State of Maharashtra resolved to place before
the Assembly, a legislative enactment to cover aspects beyond education
5 (1997) 5 SCC 437
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
695
and employment, for different categories of SCs, STs and Backward
Classes. The law was so enacted vide 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
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000'), which was brought into
force with effect from 18.10.2001. The Preamble of this Act reads as
under:
"An act to provide for the regulation of the issuance and
verification of the Caste Certificates to the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward classes and
Special Backward Category and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the regulation of the
issuance and verification of the Caste Certificates to the persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto;"
6. The Act of 2000 provided for the constitution of a Scrutiny
Committee, while first defining Scrutiny Committee under Section 2(k)
of the 'Definitions' clause and then providing for the constitution of that
Committee under Section 6 of the Act of 2000. The said Sections read
as under:
"2. Definitions.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
....
....
....
....
....
....
(k) "Scrutiny Committee" means the Committee or committees
constituted under sub-section (1) of section 6 for the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward
Category for verification of the Caste Certificate and to perform
the function of Scrutiny Committee under this Act;"
 "6. Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee.
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the
Official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s)
for verification of Caste Certificates issued by the
Competent Authorities under sub-section (1) of section
4 specifying in the said notification the functions and the
area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committee
or Committees.
(2) After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the
Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing of
the benefits or concessions provided to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned
in section 3 may make an application, well in time, in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed,
to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification
of such Caste Certificate and issue of a validity
certificate.
(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State
Government, local authority, public sector undertakings,
educational institutions, Co-operative Societies or any
other Government aided institutions shall, make an
application in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the
verification of the Caste Certificate and issue of a
validity certificate, in case a person selected for an
appointment with the Government, local authority, public
sector undertakings, educational institutions, co-operative
societies or any other Government aided institutions who
has not obtain such certificate.
(4) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure for
verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the
time limit for verification and grant of validity certificate,
as prescribed."
7. It may, thus, be noticed that the Act, in the context of the
judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil6 case, neither specified the
6 (supra)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
697
exact composition of the Scrutiny Committee, nor incorporated the
aspect of the Vigilance Committee.
8. The Act of 2000 having come into force, the Scrutiny
Committee continued as constituted under the Kumari Madhuri Patil7
case, and it was assisted by a Vigilance Cell, once again, constituted in
terms of the said judgment.
9. In the year 2003, while exercising powers under Section 18(1)
of the Act of 2000, empowering making of Rules, the State Government
brought into force, The Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules of 2003'), with effect from 4.6.2003. These
Rules, as is apparent from their description, were restrictive in
application, to the ST community. These Rules further did not lay down
any specifications for the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee, other
than to provide that there would be a Chairman, a Member Secretary
and any other Member. It is these Rules, legislated as subordinate
legislation, which brought in the Vigilance Cell. The relevant Rules read
as under:
"10. Constitution of Vigilance Cell.-
The State Government shall constitute a vigilance cell to assist
each Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for
conducting enquiry which shall consist of,-
(i) A Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police;
(ii) Police Inspector (number of Inspectors depending upon
the number of cases);
(iii) Police Constables to assist the Police Inspector;
(iv) Research Officer.
The police personnel shall investigate into the social status claims
by conducting school and home inquiries and other enquiry as
per the reference made by the Scrutiny Committee under subrule (2) of rule 12."
....
....
....
....
....
....
"12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee.
7 (supra)
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(1) On receipt of the application, the Scrutiny Committee
or a person authorized by it shall scrutinize the
application, verify the information and documents
furnished by the applicant, and shall acknowledge the
receipt of the application. The Member Secretary shall
register the application, received for verification, in the
register prescribed by the Chairman.
(2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the
documentary evidence produced by the applicant the
Scrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to the
Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other
enquiry.
(3) The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local place of
residence and original place from which the applicant
hails and usually resides, or in case of migration, to the
town or city or place from which he originally hailed
from.
(4) The Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect
all the facts about the social status claimed by the
applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may
be.
(5) The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or
guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification
of their Tribe, of the applicant.
(6) After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall
submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in
turn scrutinize the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell.
(7) In case the report of Vigilance Cell is in favour of the
applicant, and if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that
the claim of the applicant is genuine and true, the
Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate.
The validity certificate shall be issued in Form G.
(8) If the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the Vigilance
Cell report and other documents available, is not satisfied
about the claim of the applicant, the Committee shall
issue a show cause notice to the applicant and also
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
699
serve a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer by
registered post with acknowledgement due. A copy shall
also be sent to the Head of the Department concerned,
if necessary. The notice shall indicate that the
representation or reply, if any, should be made within
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice and
in any case not more than thirty days from the date of
receipt of the notice. In case the applicant requests for
adjournment or extension of the time-limit, reasonable
time, may be granted.
(9) (a) After personal hearing if the Scrutiny Committee
is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the claim,
Validity Certificate shall be issued in Form G.
(b) After personal hearing, if the Scrutiny Committee
is not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim
and correctness of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate,
it shall pass an order of cancellation and of
confiscation of the Certificate and communicate the
same to the Competent Authority for taking
necessary entries in the register and for further
necessary action. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
shall then be stamped as "cancelled and
confiscated.""
A reading of the aforesaid Rules shows that the role of the
Vigilance Cell was restricted as compared to the role envisaged under
the Kumari Madhuri Patil8 case, inasmuch as the assistance to be
provided to the Scrutiny Committee was not in every case, but only if
the Scrutiny Committee was not satisfied with the documentary
evidence produced by the applicant.
10. It appears that though this was restrictive, only to the STs,
practically speaking, the Committee as constituted under Kumari
Madhuri Patil9 continued and verification by the Vigilance Cell was
done as per the aforesaid Rules, even though it was so confined to the
ST category. This practice apparently continued without protest or any
further clarification from this Court. On seeking clarification in this
8 (supra)
9 (supra)
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
behalf, we were informed that the Rules of 2003 were so followed on
the principle of application of an 'analogous' principle.
11. We may take note of another development, i.e., a challenge
that was laid to the constitutional validity of the guidelines in Kumari
Madhuri Patil10 case, which was referred to the Constitution Bench
and these directions were upheld in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham &
Ors.11 The Constitution Bench opined that the directions issued were
intrinsic for the actual realization of the fundamental rights of the
Backward Classes of citizens. However, what is relevant to note is
that it was specifically opined that these directions would hold field so
long as the State Governments did not come up with appropriate
legislations to substitute the norms laid down in the Kumari Madhuri
Patil case. It was also opined that enquiry by the Vigilance Cell was
to be considered to be a core requirement for ascertainment of the
veracity of the caste certificate. After discussing the aspect of judicial
activism and judicial legislation coupled with judicial restraint, it was
opined as under:
"22. Therefore, we are of the view, that Directions 1 to 15 issued
in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution,
are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in
the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the
benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out.
By issuing such directions, this Court was not taking over the
functions of the legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till
the legislature chose to make an appropriate law."
12. The Act of 2000, having a wider compass qua all the
certificates to be issued, it appears that there was some difficulty
envisaged almost on the anvil of the local Self-Government elections,
to be held in the year 2011. The controversy in issue, thus, begins with
the issuance of a notification dated 30.7.2011, by the Social Justice,
Special Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra, exercising
powers conferred under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2000. The provision
reads as under:
"6. Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee.
10 (supra)
11 (2012) 1 SCC 333
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
(1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the Official
Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for verification of
Caste Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under subsection (1) of section 4 specifying in the said notification the
functions and the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny
Committee or Committees..."
13. It is the case of the State Government that with thousands
of candidates seeking to contest the elections, an infrastructural boost
was required to meet the deluge of applications for the issuance of caste
certificates sought for contesting the elections. In terms of this
Notification, thirty-five district level committees were constituted to
verify caste certificates of candidates who wished to contest the
elections to local authorities. The Chairman of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee was specified as the District Collector or the Additional
District Collector (IAS), as against the earlier provision of Additional
Commissioner (Revenue), under the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II12 case.
The relevant portion of the said Notification is reproduced as under:
"And whereas the Government of Maharashtra has now decided
to constitute District wise Caste Scrutiny Committees to appoint
District Collector or Additional District Collector (I.A.S.) as the
Chairperson of the said Scrutiny Committees for the purpose of
verification of Caste Certificate of the candidates who (sic.)13
willing to contest for elective post in any local authority.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
De-Notified Castes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation
of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act 2000 (Mah.
XXIII of 2001), the Government of Maharashtra hereby constitute
Thirty-five District Caste Scrutiny Committees as specified in the
Schedule appended hereto, for verification of Caste Certificates
of the candidates who (sic) willing to contest for elective post in
any local authority, issued by the Competent Authorities under
the sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act."
A reading of the extract of the aforesaid notification, thus, makes
it clear that the objective was to facilitate issuance of caste certificates
12 (supra)
13 To be read as who are willing to contest...
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
for "...verification of Caste Certificate of the candidates who (sic)
willing to contest for elective post in any local authority..."
14. The story that unfolded in this exercise is best illustrated by
a chart produced in the impugned judgment, which was the result of
compliance of directions issued in that matter. The chart was made
division-wise, with each district specified. It is not necessary to
reproduce the chart in its entirety, but it suffices for our purpose to
reproduce headings and the final figures for the whole of Maharashtra:
....
....
....
....
....
....
15. The aforesaid would, thus, illustrate that there were some
certificates stamped only for election purposes, while others were not.
The manner of verification of these certificates would be evident from
the speed with which they were issued, making it difficult to accept
that there could have been any proper verification. Columns 8 & 9 itself
show how the exercise was undertaken. The lesser said the better about
this exercise!
16. It is in the context of these facts that the High Court was
greatly troubled while exercising the writ jurisdiction, where the prayer
made by the petitioners, inter alia, was qua caste certificates issued
and not issued. By an amendment, a writ was specifically sought seeking
the quashing and setting aside of the aforesaid Government Resolution
dated 30.7.2011.