# Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. State of Maharashtra and Others

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 266
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-04-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.2741-2743 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.K. Maheshwari, Sanjay Karol
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/navneet-kaur-harbhajansing-kundles-navneet-kaur-ravi-rana-v-state-of-37560
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

The question that arises for consideration is that how far the High
Court was justified in completely overturning the findings of Scrutiny
Committee (validating the caste certificate of the appellant), in
exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by
reappraisal of the entire evidence on record.
Headnotes
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 - ss.
6, 7, 9 - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 - rr. 13, 14, 17 -
Various complaints were submitted against appellant before
the Scrutiny Committee seeking cancellation of the caste
validity certificate issued in her favour by Deputy Collector -
The High Court quashed and set-aside the order passed by
Scrutiny Committee primarily on the ground that the same
was obtained fraudulently and cancelled the caste certificate
issued in favour of appellant - Propriety:
Held: A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and
Rules of 2012 Rules, makes it clear that the power to deal with
verification has been specifically vested with Scrutiny Committee
and it falls within the exclusive domain of it in view of Rule 13(b)
of 2012 Rules - In the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee
accepted the caste claim of appellant vide order 03.11.2017
predominantly on the basis of two documents, i.e., (i) bona-fide
122
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
certificate dated 11.02.2014 issued by Khalsa College of Arts,
Science and Commerce in the name of Appellant's grandfather
mentioning his caste as 'Sikh Chamar'; and (ii) the Indenture of
Tenancy of 1932 which corroborated the Appellant's claim of her
forefathers having migrated to Maharashtra from Punjab back in
1932 itself along with proof of residence - The adjudication on the
basis of the documents falls solely within the domain of Scrutiny
Committee based on the inputs received from the Vigilance Cell
- The Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact
finding authority - The Scrutiny Committee duly considered the
documents placed before it and after due application of mind on
being satisfied, accorded reasons for accepting/validating the
caste claim of the appellant herein while accepting/rejecting other
certain documents - The Scrutiny Committee heard all the parties
in detail complying with the principles of natural justice - Hence,
the order of Scrutiny Committee did not merit any interference by
the High Court in a 'writ of certiorari' u/Art. 226 of Constitution of
India. [Paras 12, 13, 22, 23]
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ of certiorari - Settled
principles of law:
Held: The writ of certiorari being a writ of high prerogative,
should not be invoked on mere asking - The purpose of a writ
of certiorari for a superior Court is not to review or reweigh the
evidence to adjudicate unless warranted - The jurisdiction is
supervisory and the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act
as an appellate court unless the facts so warrant - It also ought
not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion
interfering with a finding unless perverse - The High Court in a
writ for certiorari should not interfere when such challenge is on
the ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to sustain the
impugned finding - Assessment of adequacy or sufficiency of
evidence in the case at hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Scrutiny Committee and re-agitation of challenge on such
grounds ought not have been entertained by High Court in a
routine manner. [Para 17]

## Text

_Characters 0–35,964 of 65,195. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=35964 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 121 : 2024 INSC 266
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles
@ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana
v.
State of Maharashtra and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2741-2743 of 2024)
04 April 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The question that arises for consideration is that how far the High
Court was justified in completely overturning the findings of Scrutiny
Committee (validating the caste certificate of the appellant), in
exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by
reappraisal of the entire evidence on record.
Headnotes
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 - ss.
6, 7, 9 - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 - rr. 13, 14, 17 -
Various complaints were submitted against appellant before
the Scrutiny Committee seeking cancellation of the caste
validity certificate issued in her favour by Deputy Collector -
The High Court quashed and set-aside the order passed by
Scrutiny Committee primarily on the ground that the same
was obtained fraudulently and cancelled the caste certificate
issued in favour of appellant - Propriety:
Held: A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and
Rules of 2012 Rules, makes it clear that the power to deal with
verification has been specifically vested with Scrutiny Committee
and it falls within the exclusive domain of it in view of Rule 13(b)
of 2012 Rules - In the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee
accepted the caste claim of appellant vide order 03.11.2017
predominantly on the basis of two documents, i.e., (i) bona-fide
122
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
certificate dated 11.02.2014 issued by Khalsa College of Arts,
Science and Commerce in the name of Appellant's grandfather
mentioning his caste as 'Sikh Chamar'; and (ii) the Indenture of
Tenancy of 1932 which corroborated the Appellant's claim of her
forefathers having migrated to Maharashtra from Punjab back in
1932 itself along with proof of residence - The adjudication on the
basis of the documents falls solely within the domain of Scrutiny
Committee based on the inputs received from the Vigilance Cell
- The Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact
finding authority - The Scrutiny Committee duly considered the
documents placed before it and after due application of mind on
being satisfied, accorded reasons for accepting/validating the
caste claim of the appellant herein while accepting/rejecting other
certain documents - The Scrutiny Committee heard all the parties
in detail complying with the principles of natural justice - Hence,
the order of Scrutiny Committee did not merit any interference by
the High Court in a 'writ of certiorari' u/Art. 226 of Constitution of
India. [Paras 12, 13, 22, 23]
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ of certiorari - Settled
principles of law:
Held: The writ of certiorari being a writ of high prerogative,
should not be invoked on mere asking - The purpose of a writ
of certiorari for a superior Court is not to review or reweigh the
evidence to adjudicate unless warranted - The jurisdiction is
supervisory and the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act
as an appellate court unless the facts so warrant - It also ought
not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion
interfering with a finding unless perverse - The High Court in a
writ for certiorari should not interfere when such challenge is on
the ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to sustain the
impugned finding - Assessment of adequacy or sufficiency of
evidence in the case at hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Scrutiny Committee and re-agitation of challenge on such
grounds ought not have been entertained by High Court in a
routine manner. [Para 17]
Case Law Cited
Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others
[1994] Suppl. 3 SCR 50 : (1994) 6 SCC 241; Indian
Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
123
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
and Another [2000] 2 SCR 1212 : (2000) 4 SCC 245
- relied on.
Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills
Division and Appeals, Assam and Others [1958] 1 SCR
1240 : AIR (1958) SC 398; Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep
Kumar Ranibala [2019] 17 SCR 1089 : (2019) 20 SCC
143; Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v.
State of Maharashtra and Others [2023] 3 SCR 1100 :
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 326; Anand v. Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims [2011] 15
SCR 386 : (2012) 1 SCC 113; Priya Pramod Gajbe v.
State of Maharashtra and Others [2023] 9 SCR 1261 :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 909; Marri Chandra Sekhar
Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College [1990] 2 SCR 843 :
(1990) 2 SCC 130; Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of
India and Another [1994] Suppl. 1 SCR 714 : (1994)
5 SCC 244; State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Others,
[2000] Suppl. 5 SCR 65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4; Dayaram
v. Sudhir Batham and Others [2011] 15 SCR 1092 :
(2012) 1 SCC 333; Central Council for Research in
Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and
Others [2023] 11 SCR 731 : 2023 SCC OnLine 996;
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [1964] 5 SCR 64 :
AIR 1964 SC 477 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; 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;
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012; Scheduled Castes Order, 1950.
List of Keywords
Caste validity certificate; Exclusive domain of Scrutiny Committee;
Fact finding authority; Principles of Natural Justice; Supervisory
jurisdiction; Ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material.
124
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.2741-2743 of
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 3370 of 2018, 2675 of 2019 and
WPL No. 9426 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Anshuman
Srivastava, Ankur Saigal, Ms. Kajal Dalal, Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal,
Rajesh Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shadan Farasat, Sachin Bharat Thorat, Ashok Janrao, Ms. Aparajita
Jamwal, Harshit Anand, Aman Naqvi, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Ms.
Natasha Maheshwari, Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Abhishek Babbar,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla,
Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey,
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Praveen Arya, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms.
Divyangna Malik for M/s. Lawfic, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sagar
N. Pahune Patil, Yash Prashant Sonavane, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1.
The present appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and
final order dated 08.06.2021 passed by Division Bench of High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in three Writ Petitions. Out of the said three
petitions, Writ Petition No. 3370 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 2675
of 2019 were preferred by Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao
Mankar (Respondents herein), inter-alia seeking identical reliefs, i.e.,
issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated
03.11.2017 passed by District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai
Suburban (hereinafter referred to as 'Scrutiny Committee') which
validated the caste claim of Appellant herein as 'Mochi - Scheduled
Caste' in Maharashtra. Conversely, Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 9426
of 2020 was filed by Appellant herein seeking writ of certiorari and
setting aside the findings of Scrutiny Committee, particularly in para 4
of order dated 03.11.2017 to the extent of 'non-consideration' of oldest
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
125
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
documents submitted by her, which as contended by her sustained
and established her caste claim. The Division Bench vide common
impugned judgment allowed the petitions of Anandra Vithoba Adsul
and Raju Shamrao Mankar and dismissed the petition preferred by
Appellant. The High Court quashed and set-aside the order dated
03.11.2017 passed by Scrutiny Committee primarily on the ground
that the same was obtained fraudulently and cancelled the caste
certificate issued in favour of Appellant. The Division Bench further
imposed a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Appellant and directed to
surrender her caste certificate. Hence, the present appeals.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2.
The entire controversy revolves around the validation of caste claim
in favour of Appellant, on the anvil of which, the Appellant contested
the 2019 Parliamentary election from Amravati constituency in
Maharashtra as an independent candidate on a seat reserved for
Scheduled Caste and emerged as winning candidate while defeating
the other contesting candidates including Anandra Vithoba Adsul
(Respondent herein). Aggrieved, Appellant's candidature on the
reserved seat was assailed by other contesting candidates primarily on
the ground that she obtained the 'Mochi-Scheduled Caste' certificate
from the authorities concerned by submitting forged and fabricated
documents. The genesis of the dispute is traceable from year 2013,
when various complaints were submitted against Appellant before
the Scrutiny Committee seeking cancellation of the caste validity
certificate issued in her favour by Deputy Collector vide order dated
30.08.2013. From 2013 to 2017, the proceedings continued and
eventually, when the matter was seized before High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No. 325 of 2014 preferred by one Raju Mankar, the
High Court vide order dated 28.06.2017 set-aside the caste validity
certificate issued in favour of Appellant and remanded the matter with
directions to the Scrutiny Committee to give opportunity of hearing
to all the parties and take decision in accordance with law.
3.
In furtherance of remand by High Court vide order dated 28.06.2017,
the matter was taken up by Scrutiny Committee, and the parties
duly contested their case. After hearing the parties at length and
having considered all the documents placed on record, the Scrutiny
Committee accepted the caste claim of Appellant vide order
03.11.2017 predominantly on the basis of two documents, i.e., (i)
126
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
bona-fide certificate dated 11.02.2014 issued by Khalsa College of
Arts, Science and Commerce in the name of Appellant's grandfather
mentioning his caste as 'Sikh-Chamar'; and (ii) the Indenture of
Tenancy of 1932 which corroborated the Appellant's claim of her
forefathers having migrated to Maharashtra from Punjab back in
1932 itself along with proof of residence. Aggrieved from above, the
parties filed respective Writ Petitions and hence, the instant appeals.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT
4.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta at the outset contended
that High Court erred in upsetting the detailed findings of Scrutiny
Committee in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution
of India. High Court by invoking its jurisdiction to issue a writ
of certiorari ought not to have interfered in the matter since the
Committee arrived at such conclusion after having conducted
extensive fact-finding exercise. He further submitted that the scope
of exercise of jurisdiction in such cases is limited to examination of
orders passed by the Courts/Forums below to see if such orders
have been passed without jurisdiction, or in excess of the jurisdiction
or due to failure of exercise of jurisdiction. Undisputedly, Scrutiny
Committee in the instant case, being a quasi-judicial authority
exercised its jurisdiction under '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 '2000 Act') and adjudicated the
claim. The fact-finding exercise and assessment of documents fell
within the exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee and High Court
in supervisory jurisdiction dealt with the petitions akin a statutory
appeal. The roving inquiry conducted by High Court was uncalled
for, particularly when in the instant case there is no allegation to the
effect that Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction. The procedure as
prescribed was duly followed by the Scrutiny Committee and after
due application of mind, the claim of Appellant was validated. [See
'Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division
and Appeals, Assam and Others., AIR 1958 SC 398' - Para 30
to 39 and 41; 'Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala,
(2019) 20 SCC 143' - Para 85 to 87; 'Indian Overseas Bank
Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another, 2000 (4)
SCC 245' - Para 17; Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
127
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 326 - Para 28]
5.
So far as question of inadmissibility of documents submitted by
Appellant before Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it was argued by
the learned Senior Counsel that those documents carried a statutory
presumption under Indian Evidence Act as they were related to
forefathers of Appellant and belonged from pre-independence era.
Unless any adverse findings were returned on those documents by
Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee erred in not considering them
and holding them as inadmissible. [See 'Anand Vs. Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113'
- Para 22; 'Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 909' - Para 8 to 12]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS
6.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal mainly contested the
case on the scope of interference with the Scheduled Castes Order,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Presidential Order') issued by
President under Article 341 of Constitution of India and argued that it
is constitutionally impossible to grant the caste certificate in favour of
Appellant. He submitted that in absence of specific caste ('Ravidasia
Mochi' or 'Sikh Chamar') being originally mentioned in the said
Presidential Order for Maharashtra State, no caste certificate could
have been conferred at the first instance in favour of Appellant. He
further submitted that the issue of interfering with the Presidential
Order is no more res-integra and has been long back well settled
by catena of judgments passed by this Court including Constitution
Bench judgments [See 'Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S.
Medical College, (1990) 2 SCC 130'; 'Action Committee on Issue
of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Union of India and
Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244'; 'State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and
Others, (2001) 1 SCC 4'], wherein it has been categorically held that
the Presidential Order is to be read as it is and no further interpretation
is permissible by any authority to such order. The terminology used
in the Presidential Order is to be read verbatim and if a caste is
mentioned in the original Order, then only benefit of caste certificate
can be issued in favour of an applicant belonging from one State
and migrated to another. No kind of 'prefix' or 'suffix' can be taken
128
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
into consideration to expand the ambit of Presidential Order by any
authority, and it is only the Parliament which is competent by law to
include or exclude a caste/tribe from the list of notified Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He further drew our attention to the
extracts of Presidential Order and submitted that neither 'Ravidasia
Mochi' nor 'Sikh Chamar' is mentioned or recognized therein. In such
case, if a caste has not been particularly mentioned or notified for
a State, then the benefit of recognition to an applicant belonging to
a caste notified for that particular State cannot be granted. What
cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. Lastly, learned
Senior Counsel concluded his arguments on the note that, once
such is the situation where the Presidential Order itself is a selfspeaking document, nothing survives in the case for adjudication
and no interference of this Court is called for.
7.
The assisting learned counsel Mr. Shadan Farasat mainly contended
on the entirety of the facts and argued in support of the observations
made by High Court by demonstrating as to how the Appellant
obtained the caste claim certificate by submitting multiple forged and
fabricated documents. He submitted that a fraud has been played by
the Appellant on the authorities to get her caste certificate by using
'trial and error' method by creating multiple forged documents and
submitting them to sustain her claim, specifically when her initial
documents in support of 'Mochi' caste were found to be forged and
fabricated. He further urged that, even for the sake of argument if it
is assumed that the documents are genuine in nature, then also the
Appellant cannot be granted the caste certificate for the reason that
the documents on the basis of which the Appellant sought benefit of
caste certificate are self-contradictory in nature. He drew the attention
of this Court to the first claim submitted by the Appellant where she
claimed herself belonging to 'Ravidasia Mochi' from Punjab State.
Although the said documents were not admitted by the Scrutiny
Committee, however, the documents showing the Appellant to be
'Sikh Chamar' were admitted and intriguingly, she was granted a
'Mochi' caste certificate which had cascading effect of tinkering
with the Presidential Order as neither 'Sikh Chamar' nor 'Ravidasia
Mochi' is recognized as Scheduled Caste for Maharashtra State
therein. Hence, such an exercise carried out by Scrutiny Committee
by considering the Appellant's case as 'Sikh-Chamar' or 'Ravidasia
Mochi' even on the surface of it as true for validating her caste
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
129
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
claim, was impermissible in law since neither 'Sikh-Chamar' nor
'Ravidasia Mochi' are present in the original Presidential Order of
1950 for Maharashtra State.
8.
To substantiate the above argument, he further placed reliance
primarily on the three documents submitted by Appellant before the
Scrutiny Committee, i.e., (i) her father's school leaving certificate; (ii)
her father's caste certificate; and (iii) her self-school leaving certificate.
It is submitted that all the above three documents were interpolated,
forged and fabricated to procure the caste validity certificate. So far
as first document, i.e., Appellant's father school leaving certificate is
concerned, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report that on inspection
it was found that the concerned school never issued the said
certificate. Secondly, the Appellant's father caste certificate itself stood
cancelled and confiscated by the Scrutiny Committee vide order dated
03.11.2017. Though on the very same date, the Scrutiny Committee
validated the caste claim in favour of Appellant and rejected the
benefit of same caste to her father. Thirdly, the last document, i.e.,
Appellant's self-school leaving certificate issued by Kartikeya High
School and Junior College, New Hall Road, Kurla West, Mumbai,
mentioning 'Mochi' under the religion column in favour of Appellant,
it is submitted that the said change was done on 23.08.2013 under
the political influence on letter sent by Appellant's husband who is a
sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Badnera constituency
in Amravati district.
ANALYSIS
9.
Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant to highlight
that the issue of procurement of caste certificate through fraudulent
means has been a longtime menace. In absence of any mechanism
prescribing the procedure, the discretionary powers vested with
authorities concerned have been subject matter of multiple layers
of litigation before Courts throughout India. Eventually, the issue
concerning the procedure to be followed for adjudication of caste
claims was considered in detail by Constitution Bench of this Court in
'Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241', wherein this
Court expressed grave concerns about the deprivation of benefits
to genuine candidates, especially when caste certificate has been
obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged documents and social
status. This Court laid emphasis on the need of the hour to streamline
130
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the procedure for issuance of caste certificates, their scrutiny and
validation thereafter. Resultantly, this Court exercising the powers
under Article 142 of Constitution of India, laid down exhaustive
procedural guidelines in para 13 which is reproduced below as thus -
13. ........It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates
issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost
expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is
necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of
social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval,
which may be the following:
1.
The application for grant of social status certificate
shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer
and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and
the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather
than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2.
The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case
may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested
by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted
officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe,
tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal
communities, the place from which he originally hails
from and other particulars as may be prescribed by
the Directorate concerned.
3.
Application for verification of the caste certificate
by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six
months in advance before seeking admission into
educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4.
All the State Governments shall constitute a
Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional
or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er 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
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
131
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
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.
6.
The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from
the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social
status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious
or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned
should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of
the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a
registered post with acknowledgement due or through
the head of the educational institution concerned in
which the candidate is studying or employed. The
notice should indicate that the representation or reply,
if any, would be made within two weeks from the
date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on
request not more than 30 days from the date of the
receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for
132
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be
made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such
representation/reply shall convene the committee and
the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who
shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/
parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of
their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any
other convenient mode may be published in the village
or locality and if any person or association opposes
such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence
may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity
either in person or through counsel, the Committee
may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and
consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by
the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate
order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7.
In case the report is in favour of the candidate and
found to be genuine and true, no further action need
be taken except where the report or the particulars
given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently
obtained and in the latter event the same procedure
as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8.
Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to
the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor
to appear before the Committee with all evidence in
his or their support of the claim for the social status
certificates.
9.
The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously
as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings
within such period not exceeding two months. If after
inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim
to be false or spurious, they should pass an order
cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the
same. It should communicate within one month from
the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result
of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and
in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
133
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
educational institution or appointment to an officer
post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted
by the Principal or such other authority competent
in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social
status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly
sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the
competent officer or non-official and such admission
or appointment should be only provisional, subject to
the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final
and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority
should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as
expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ
petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of
by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie
against that order to the Division Bench but subject
to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status
claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/
the candidate should be prosecuted for making false
claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and
sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as
an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification
for elective posts or offices under the State or the
Union or elections to any local body, legislature or
Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee holding that the certificate obtained
was false, on its cancellation and confiscation
simultaneously, it should be communicated to the
educational institution concerned or the appointing
authority by registered post with acknowledgement
due with a request to cancel the admission or the
134
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational
institution responsible for making the admission
or the appointing authority, should cancel the
admission/appointment without any further notice to
the candidate and debar the candidate from further
study or continue in office in a post.
In furtherance of the said guidelines, streamlined procedure was
formulated and State Acts were enacted to deal with caste claim
cases.
10. As the present case arises from Maharashtra, it is necessary to deal
with the respective State Act, i.e., the 2000 Act enacted with effect
from 18.10.2001 containing elaborative procedure and mechanism
for regulation and verification of caste claims. Since the moot point in
this case is arising from the verification and issuance of caste validity
certificate in favour of Appellant, it becomes imperative to look into
the relevant provisions of the Act, in particular Section 6, Section 7
and Section 9, which are reproduced below for ready reference -
Section 6 - Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny
Committee.
(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.
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
135
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
(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.
Section 7 - Confiscation and Cancellation of false
Certificate.
(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this
Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Category has obtained a false
Caste Certificate to the effect that either himself or
his children belong to such Castes, Tribes or Classes,
the Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise
call for the record and enquire into the correctness
of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the
certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by
an order cancel and confiscate the certificate by
following such procedure as prescribed, after giving
the person concerned an opportunity of being heard,
and communicate the same to the concerned person
and the concerned authority, if any.
(2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under
this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged
before any authority or court except the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
136
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 9 - Civil Court powers to Competent Authority,
Appellate Authority and Scrutiny Committee.
(1) The Competent Authority, the Appellate Authority
and the Scrutiny Committee shall, while holding
an enquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a
Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and in particular in respect of the
following matters, namely :-
(a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production
of any document;
(c)
receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or
copy thereof from any Court or office;
and
(e) issuing Commissions for the
examination of witnesses or
documents.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that power to
verify the correctness/validation of the caste certificate issued
by Competent Authority under Section 4 is vested with Scrutiny
Committee constituted under Section 6. Section 7 further empowers
the Scrutiny Committee with suo motu powers or otherwise to call
for record and enquire into correctness of a caste certificate if it is of
the opinion that such certificate was obtained fraudulently and also
vests the Committee with the power to cancel and confiscate the
certificate in question in accordance with law. Such order of Scrutiny
Committee as per sub clause (2) is said to be final and protected
from any challenge before any authority except High Court under
Article 226 of Constitution of India. Furthermore, Section 9 confers
all powers on the Scrutiny Committee as exercised by Civil Court
while trying a suit as per Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
11. In furtherance of the aforesaid 2000 Act, the State of Maharashtra
further brought in force the 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
137
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012' (hereinafter referred to
as '2012 Rules'), stipulating detailed provisions regarding procedure
for constitution of Scrutiny Committee as well as the procedure to
be followed by it while dealing with the claims seeking validation of
caste certificate issued by Competent Authority.