Supreme Court of India
COLLECTOR, BILASPURversusAJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 763
- Decided
- 13 October 2011
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
The Commission may not conduct an inquiry or pass a finding on an individual's caste status; it can only refer such complaints to the appropriate State authority for verification, rendering the Commission’s order and the High Court’s findings on finality, natural‑justice breach and political motivation untenable.
Summary
The case concerned a complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that Ajit P.K. Jogi had fraudulently obtained Scheduled Tribe certificates and contested elections from reserved constituencies. The Commission held a hearing, recorded a finding that Jogi’s certificates were false, and directed the State Government to verify and cancel them. The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the Commission’s order, deeming it politically motivated and violative of natural justice. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that under Article 338 (and 338A) the Commission may only inquire into deprivation of rights and may not adjudicate the caste status of an individual; it must refer the matter to the State Government or a Scrutiny Committee. Consequently, the Commission’s order was invalid, the High Court’s observations on finality, natural‑justice breach and political motivation were overturned, and the matter was remitted to a duly constituted Scrutiny Committee for verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has jurisdiction to entertain complaints about the genuineness of a caste certificate of a particular individual and to pronounce on the validity of that certificate and the individual's caste status.
- Whether the earlier writ petitions dismissed by the High Court conferred any finality on the caste status of the first respondent.
- Whether the Commission violated principles of natural justice in recording its finding.
- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the proceedings before the Commission were politically motivated.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 338, s. Article 338A
Subjects
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribescaste certificateScheduled Tribejurisdictionnatural justicepolitical motivationverification committeescrutiny committeeArticle 338Article 338Areservationelectionfalse certificate
Judgment
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1045
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR A
v.
AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4069 of 2008)
OCTOBER 13, 2011
B
[R.V. RAVEENORAN AND H. L. DATTU, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 338(5)(b) (as originally stood) and 338-A - c
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes - Powers of - HELD: The power under clause (5}(b)
of Article 338 did not entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry
in regard to the caste status o~_any particular individual,
summon documents, and record a finding that his caste 0
certificate is bogus or false - It -such a complaint was received
about the deprivation of the rights and safeguards, it will have
to refer the matter to the State Government or the authority
concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take
necessary action - The scope of the duties of the E
Commission did not involve inquiry or a,rpudication in regard
to the rights of parties or caste status o"f the parties - The
same is the position under Article 328-A providing for a
separate commission for Scher;luled Tribes with identical
duties - In the instant case, though the Commission ultimately F
directed the State Government to conduct the verification of
the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe certificate, it
categorically recorded a finding that the person concerned
had secured a false certificate - The order of the Commission,
therefore, cannot be sustained - High Court was justified in
setting aside the said order - Social stc:tus certificate. G
Article 226 read with Articles 338 and 338-A - Writ
petitions alleging that the person complained against had
obtained false certificates showing him as belonging to a
1045 H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Scheduled Tribe - Dismissed - Effect of - HELD: The fact
that two writ petitions were filed at some point of time,
challenging the claim of the person complained against that
he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe may not be conclusive as
the first writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it
B involved disputed questions of fact which could not be gone
into in a writ proceeding and the second writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that investigation into the a/legations
of forged certificates was in progress - Therefore, even though
the Commission was not entitled to hold an inquiry and record
c a finding that the person complained against did not belong
to a Scheduled Tribe, having regard to clauses (5)(b) and (f)
of Article 338, it had the power and authority to require the
State Government or the caste verification Committee
constituted by the State Government, to examine the caste
status of the person concerned - The High Court was,
0
therefore, not justified in holding that in view of the disposal
of earlier writ petitions, the dispute relating to tribal status of
the person concerned, had attained some kind of finality.
Respondent no. 6 filed a compliant before the
E National Commission for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (the Commission) in 2001, alleging that
respondent no. 1 being a Christian and not belonging to
a Scheduled Tribe, had obtained several false caste
certificates showing him as belonging to 'Kanwar'
F Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a
constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The
Commission issued a show cause notice to respondent
no. 1 proposing to verify his caste certificate. The
Commission instructed its branch at Bhopal to ascertain
G the correct position and verify the caste claim of
respondent no. 1. The Bhopal office collected some
material to show that respondent no. 1 belonged to
Satnami caste (a backward class) and that he did not
belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got
H elected as an MLA from a reserved constituency for
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1047
Scheduled Tribes, based on a false caste certificate. On A
the basis of the material so collected, the Commission
called upon respondent no. 1 to offer his explanation and
ultimately by its order dated 16.10.2001, held that
respondent no. 1 fraudulently claimed to belong to
Kanwar community for the purpose of getting ST B
certificate, and directed the State Government to conduct
the verification of genuineness of the ST certificate
obtained by respondent no. 1 and to initiate urgent
necessary action for cancellation of his ST certificate and
also criminal action as provided in the law and the rules. c
The writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was allowed
by the Chhattisgarh High Court holding that the social
status of respondent no. 1 was challenged earlier before
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in writ petitions which
had been dismissed and as the decisions ofthe said High
0
Court were judgments in rem, the Commission could not·
have ignored those judgments. Aggrieved, the State of
Chhattisgarh filed CA No.4082 of 2008, the Collector,
Bilaspur filed CA No.4069 of 2008, respondent no. 6 filed
CA No. 4079 of 2008 and four interveners in the High E
Court filed CA No. 4074 of 2008.
The questions for consideration before the Court
were: (i) Whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to
entertain complaints about the genuineness of caste
certificate of a particular individual and pronounce upon F
the validity of the caste certificate and the caste status
of such person; (ii) Whether .the High Court was justified
in holding that in view of two earlier decisions of the High
Court in WP No.1417 of 1988 decided on 24.7.1989 and
WP No.1039 of 2001 decided on 24.7.2001, challenging G
the caste status of respondent no. 1, his caste status had
attc\ined some kind of finality; (iii) Whether there was any
violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the
Commission as held by the High Court;· and (iv) Whether
the High Court was justified in holding that the H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A proceedings before the Commission at the instance of
respondent no. 6 were politically motivated?
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court
HELD:
B
Question (i):
. __ 1.1 It is evident from Article 338 of the Constitution
of India as--ilong1nally stood, that the Commission was
constituted to protect and safeguard the persons
C belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by
ensuring: (i) anti-discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by
way reservation and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of
grievances. The duties under clause (5)(b) of Article 338
did not extend either to issue of caste/tribe certificate or
D to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe certificate or to decide
upon the validity of the caste certificate. Having regard
to the sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the
'Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into
any specific complaint about deprivation of any rights
E and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such a
complaint was received, the Commission could enquire
into such complaint and give a report to the Central
Government or State Government requiring effective
implementation of the safeguards and measures for the
F protection and welfare and socio-economic development
of scheduled tribes. Thi_s power to enquire into
'deprivation of rights and safeguards of the scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes' did not include the power
to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any
G particular individual. In fact, as there was no effective
mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued' to
individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil* directed
constitution of Scrutiny Committees, and formulated a
scheme for verification of tribal status and held that any
H application for verification of tribal status as a Scheduled
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1049
Tribe should be carried out by such Committees. The A
verification of the validity of caste certificates and
determination of the caste status should, therefore, be
done by the Scrutiny Committees constituted as per the
directions in Madhuri Patil or in terms of any statute made
by the appropriate government in that behalf. [para 13- B
14] [1061-H; 1063-E-F; 1062-A-E]
*Madhuri Patil vs. Addi. Commissioner (Tribal
=
Development) - 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50 1994 (6) SCC
241; Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Orissa State Commission for C
=
Women 2010 (9) SCR 457 2010 (8) SCC 633; and State
Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin 2010 (2) SCR 6
= 201 o (4) sec 368 - relied on.
1.2 It is true that the Commission had ultimately
. directed the State Government to conduct the verification D
of the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe certificate
obtained by respondent no. 1, and to initiate action for
cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe certificate as also
criminal action as provided in law and submit an action
taken report to the Commission. But this is preceded by E
a very lengthy order which categorically records a finding
that respondent no. 1 had secured a false certificate. It is
only after recording the said findings that the
Commission directed the State government to verify the
genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by respondent F
no. 1 and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate
and also initiate criminal action. All these were
unwarranted. [para 15-16] [1064-G-H; 1066-E-F]
1.4 The power under clause (5)(b) of Article 338 (or
under any of the other sub-clauses of clause (5) of Article G
338) did not entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry in
regard to the caste status of any particular individual,
summon documents, and record a finding that his caste
certificate is bogus or false. If such a complaint was
received about the deprivation of the rights and H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A safeguards, it will have to refer the matter to the State
Government or the authority concerned with verification
of caste/tribal status, to take necessary action. It can
certainly follow up the matter with the State Government
or such authority dealing with the matter to ensure that
s the complaint is inquired into and appropriate decision
is taken. If the State Government or the authorities did not
take action, the Commission could either itself or through
the affected persons, initiate legal action to ensure that
there is a proper verification of the caste certificate, but
c it cannot undertake the exercise itself, as has been done
in the instant case. The plea that there was sufficient
material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The
scope of the duties of the Commission did not involve
inquiry or adjudication in regard to the rights of parties
D or caste status of the parties. The same is the position
even under Article 338A (which was subsequently
inserted) providing for a separate Commission for
Scheduled Tribes with identical duties. The order of the
Commission cannot therefore be sustained. The Migh
E Court was justified in setting aside the said order dated
16.10.2001. [para 16] [1066-F-H; 1067-A-D]
Questions (ii) to (iv)
2.1 In the instant case, serious allegations were made
in regard to the certificates obtained by respondent no.1
F and the tribal status claimed by him. The certificates have
never undergone a scrutiny by a properly constituted
authority. The fact that two writ petitions were filed at
some point of time, challenging the claim of respondent
no.1 that he belonged to a scheduled tribe may not be
G conclusive as the first writ petition was dismissed on the
ground that it involved disputed questions of fact which
could not be gone into in a writ proceeding and the
second writ petition was dismiss·ed on the ground that
investigation into the allegations of forged certificates
H was in progress. Therefore, even though the Commission
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1051
was not entitled to hold an inquiry and record a finding A
that respondent no. 1 did not belong to a scheduled tribe,.
having regard to clauses (5)(b) and (f) of Article 338, it had
the power and authority to require the State Government
or the caste verification Committee constituted by the
State Government, to examine the caste status claimed B
by respondent no.1. The correspondence initiated by the
Commission clearly showed that a request/direction for
verification of the caste of respondent no.1 was made by
the Commission and the State Government responded by
stating that the claim of respondent no. 1 that he c
belonged to a scheduled tribe and the validity of social
status certificates would be verified by the Scrutiny
Committee. The High Court was, therefore, not justified
in holding that in view of the disposal of earlier writ
petitions by the High Court, the dispute relating to tribal 0
status of the first respondent had attained some kind of
finality. [para 17-18] [1068-8-H]
2.2 On the facts and circumstances, there was also
no justification for the High Court to either term the
application given by respondent no. 6 to the Commission E
as politically motivated or direct the State Government
and the Commission to calculate the actual expenses
incurred in regard to the inquiry and recover the same
from respondent no. 6. [para 18] [1069-A-B]
F
3.1 The order of the High Court dated 15.12.2006 to
the extent it quashes the order dated 16.10.2001 of the
Commission, is upheld. [para 19] [1069-C]
3.2 The adverse observations by the High Court
about the complaint by respondent no. 6, the inquiry by G
the Commission, and th·e stand of the State Government
and the Collector before the High Court, being politically
motivated, are set aside. [para 19] [1069-D]
3.3 The direction to the State Government and the H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Commission to calculate the actual cost incurred in
prosecuting the writ petition and directing respondent no.
6 to pay the actual costs plus Rs.10,000 is set aside. [para
19] (1069-E]
3.4 In terms of the direction of the Commission, the
8
State Government through a duly constituted Scrutiny
Committee shall now undertake the verification/scrutiny
of the social status (tribal) certificates issued t~
respondent no.1 showing him as belonging to 'Kanwar'
C Scheduled Tribe and decide the matter after giving due
opportunity to respondent no.1, uninfluenced by any
observations by the Commission, High Court or this
Court. The State Government/concerned authorities shall
be entitled to take consequential action on the basis of
the order/report of the Scrutiny Committee. [para 19]
D [1069-E-G]
Case Law Reference:
2010 (9) SCR 457 relied on para 11
E 2010 (2) SCR 6 relied on para 12
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50 relied on para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4069 of 2008.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur, Chattisgarh in Writ
Petition No. 2080 of 2001.
WITH
G Civil Appeal Nos. 4047, 4079 and 4082 of 2008.
Rajiv Dhavan and V.A. Mohta, Jugal Kishore Gilda, AAG,
Ashok Mathur, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Rucha A. Mayee, Nilkanta
Nayak, Gagan Sanghi, Rajesh Srivastava and Rameshwar
H Prasad Goyal for the appellant.
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS.1053
'-- ·.
T.S. Doabia, K.K. Venugopal, Sanjeev Dubey, Sadhna A
Sandhu, C.K. Sharma, M.S. Doabia, D.S. Mahra, Rahul
Sharma, Prerna Deosha, Anbar Talwar, P.N. Puri, S.K. Dubey,
Jamal Akhtar and Akshay Singh for the Respondents.
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. These four appeals by speciai
leave are filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2006 of the
Chhattisgarh High Court in WP No.2080 of 2011. As the ranks
of parties differ, they are referred to by their ranks in CA
No.4069/2008. c
2. The first respondent (Ajit P.K. Jogi) claimed that he
belonged to a tribal community known as 'Kanwar', a notified
Scheduled Tribe. He obtained social status/caste certificates
from time to time, showing him as belonging to Kanwar- D
Scheduled Tribe, that is, certificate dated 6.6.1967 from the
Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated
27.2.1984 by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur,
certificate dated 6.3.1986 by the Tehsildar, Pendra Road,
certificate dated 12.1.1993 by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra E
Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 11.8.1999 by Naib Tehsildar,
Indore, certificate dated 8.1.2001 from the Addi. Collector,
Bilaspur and certificate dated 30.9.2003 by Addi. Collector,
Bilaspur. The first respondent was elected twice to Rajya Sabha
and contested two parliamentary elections from Raigarh and
F
Shahdol constituencies. He successfully contested from
Marwahi Vidhan Sabha constituency reserved for Scheduled
Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh
came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief
Minister and served in that capacity till December, 2002.
G
3. In the year 2001, the sixth respondent filed a complaint
before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (the third respondent herein, for short
'Commission') alleging that the first respondent was a Christian
and that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe; and that he H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A had obtained several false caste certificates showing him as
belonging to 'Kanwar' Scheduled Tribe and had contested
elections from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
He requested that appropriate action be taken in that behalf.
4. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the first
8
respondent proposing to verify his caste certificate. The
Commission referred the complaint received from the sixth
respondent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh
on 29.1.2001. The state government (fourth respondent)
responded to the Commission stating that it had constituted a
C committee dated 27.2.2001 for verification of caste certificates
and the reference received from the Commission had been
transmitted to the Principal Secretary, Department for Welfare
of SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities Welfare (fifth respondent)
for necessary verification through the said Committee. The
D Commission thereafter summoned the Chief Secretary of
Chhattisgarh to appear before the Commission on 24.1.2001
with all documents relating to the caste status of the Chief
Minister (first respondent). The Commission summoned the
Principal Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
E Welfare Department to appear on 18.5.2011 with the records.
He responded and made available the instructions issued by
the state government relating to verification of caste certificates.
He submitted that having regard to the provision made by the
state government for verification of caste certificate by a
F scrutiny committee, the Commission did not have jurisdiction
to verify the caste certificate issued to the first respondent. The
Commission felt that there was want of co-operation from the
Government of Chhattisgarh and instructed its branch at Bhopal
to ascertain the correct position and verify the caste claim of
G the first respondent. Apparently, the Bhopal office collected
some material to show that the first respondent belonged to
Satnami caste (a backward class) and that he did not belong
to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got elected as a MLA
from a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes, based on
H a false caste certificate. On the basis of alleged material so
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1055
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
collected, the Commission called upon the first respondent. A
vide notice dated 26.5.2001 to offer his explanation and also
appear before the Commission on 30.9.2001 with necessary
documents. One Mr. R. N. Sharma, Chief Legal Adviser to the
Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh appeared on behalf of the first
respondent and submitted a reply dated 12.9.2001 to the notice B
dated 26.5.2001. Several documents were furnished and
written submissions were also filed.
5. The Commission made an order dated 16.10.2001.
We extract below the preamble and operative portion of the said C
order:
"In the matter of : Verification of community certificate of
Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi, S/o Shri K.P. Jogi, Village Sarbahra, Tehsil
Pendra Road, District Bilaspur.
D
)()()()()( )()()()()()(
Taking into consideration the available evidence. as
discussed above, the commission is of the considefed
view that Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi has been fraudulently claiming
to belong to Kanwar community for the purpose of getting E
ST certificate, although he and his ancestors belong to
Satnami caste, which is included in the SC list of the State.
However, as Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi's grandfather appears to
have got converted to Christianity, he was not eligible for
concessions/benefits available to SCs also. The state F
government is, therefore, called upon to conduct the
verification of genuineness of the ST certificate obtained
by Shri APK Jogi and to initiate urgent necessary action
for cancellation of his ST certificate and also criminal action
· as provided in the law and the rules. A report on the action G
taken may be submitted to the Commission within 30
days."
6. The said order was challenged by the first respondent
by filing WP No.2080 of 2001 in the Chhattisgarh High Court. H.
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order
dated 15.12.2006 allowed the writ petition. It held that the
complaint of the sixth respondent before the Commission
questioning the social status of first respondent was politically
motivated, that the first respondent had been openly claiming
B the status of a person belonging to a scheduled tribe, at least
frofn4be year .1967 and had obtained several certificates
certifying his status and had contested several elections as a
person belonging to a scheduled tribe, that his status was
challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in WP
c No.1417 of 1988 and WP No.1039 of 2001 and the said
petitions had been dismissed and as the decisions of the High
Court were judgments in rem, the Commission could not have
ignored those judgments. The High Court also held that the
Commission had violated the principles of natural justice as it
had collected material behind the back of the first respondent
0
and recorded adverse findings without disclosing the material
collected by it to the first respondent and without giving an
opportunity to the first respondent, to have his say on such
material. The court also passed strong observations against the
sixth respondent stating that the entire exercise was politically
E motivated. Consequently, it allowed the writ petition, quashed
the entire proceedings of the Commission as also the findings
in the order dated 16.10.2001 as being void and inoperative.
7. The High Court also directed the first respondent to pay
F cost of Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent. Further, it directed
the State of Chhattisgarh and the Commission to file memo of
calculations giving full details of the actual cost incurred by them
in resisting the said writ petition and directed the sixth
respondent to pay the said cost incurred by the State of
G Chhattisgarh and the Commission.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of
Chhattisgarh has filed CA No.4082 of 2008, the Collector,
Bilaspur has filed CA No.4069 of 2008, the sixth respondent
H filed CA No. 4079 of 2008 and four interveners in the High Court
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1057
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
filed CA No. 4074 of 2008. On the contentions raised, the A
following questions arise for our consideration :
(i) Whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to
entertain complaints about the genuineness of
caste certificate of a particular individual and B
pronounce upon the validity of the caste certificate
and the caste status of such person?
(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in holding-that
in view of two. earlier decisions of the High Court
in WP No.1417of1988 decided on 24.7.1989 and C
WP No.1039 of 2001 decided on 24. 7.2001,
challenging the caste status of the first respondent,
his caste status had attained some kind of finality.
(iii) Whether there was any violation of principles of o
natural justice on the part of the Commission as
held by the High Court?
(iv)- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that
-the proceedings before the Commission at the
instance of sixth respondent were politically E
motivated?
Re : Question {i)
8. Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the
F
constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Castes
and Article 338A mandates the constitution of a National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes. At the relevant point of time,
that is in the year 2001, Article 338A was not in existence and
the unamended Article 338 provided for a National Commission G
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (5) of
unamended Article 338 enumerated the duties of the
Commission, relevant portions of which are extracted below :
"(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission-
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A (a) To investigate and monitor all matters relating to the
safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution or under any other
law for the time being in force or under any order of the
Government and to evaluate the working of such
B safeguards;
(b) To inquire into specific complaints with respect to the
deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes;
c (c) To participate and advise on the planning process of
socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their
development under the Union and any State;
D (d) To present to the President, annually and at such other
times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the
working of those safeguards;
(e) To make in such reports recommendations as to the
measures that should be taken by the Union or any State
E for the effective implementation of those safeguards and
other measures for the protection, welfare and socio-
economic development of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and;
F (f) To discharge such other functions in relation to the
protection, welfare and development and advancement
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as the
President may, subject to the provisions of any law made
by Parliament, by rule specify.
G (6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid
before each House of Parliament along with a
memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to
be taken on the recommendations relating to the Union and
the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such
H recommendations.
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1059
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to A
any matter with which any State Government is concerned,
a copy of such report shall be forwarded to the Governor
of the State who shall cause it to be laid before the
Legislature of the State along with a memorandum
explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the B
recommendations relating to the State and the reasons for
the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such
recommendations.
(8) The Commission shall, while investigating the matters
referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint C
referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5, have all the
powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular in
respect of the following matters, namely : -
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of D
any person from any part of India and examining
him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any
documents;
E
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy
thereof from any court or office;
F
(e) issuing summons/communications for the
examination of witnesses and documents;
(f) any other matter which the President may by
rule determine.
G
(9) The Union and every State Government shall consult
the Commission on all major policy matters affecting and
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx"
(emphasis supplied) H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A 10. The appellants and the Commission relied upon sub-
clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 which provided that it shall
be the ·duty of the Commission to enquire into specific
complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards
to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, as the source of
B power to the Commission to enquire into and decide upon the
caste status of any individual claiming to belong to a scheduled
tribe. It was submitted that if persons not belonging to scheduled
tribes falsely claim the status of scheduled tribes, they would
thereby be depriving the rights and benefits available to
C genuine scheduled tribes and consequently, when a specific
complaint is received alleging that any particular person had
made a false claim of being a person belonging to a scheduled
tribe, the Commission was duty bond to enquire into the such
specific complaint as it related to deprivation of rights and
safeguards of scheduled tribes. It was further argued that it had
0
examined and decided upon the caste status of the first
respondent, after examining the material collected by it and
after giving an opportunity to the first respondent to prove that
he belonged to a scheduled tribe, and it had come to a
conclusion that the first respondent had fraudulently claimed that
E he belonged to the scheduled tribe of Kanwar and had obtained
false certificate to that effect; and that the first respondent was
a Christian, who did not belong to a scheduled tribe and
therefore, not eligible to enjoy the reservation and other benefits
extended to scheduled tribes. It was also pointed out that the
F Commission had ultimately directed the State Government to
conduct the verification of the genuineness of the ST certificate
obtained by, the first respondent and initiate action for
cancellation of his ST certificate and consequently, initiate
criminal action in accordance with law.
G
11. Dealing with the powers of a similar (State)
Commission for Women, this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena
vs. Orissa State Commission for Women [2010 (8) SCC 633],
held as under :
H
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1061
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
"Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel for Respondent A
2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State
Commission to receive complaints including the matter
concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is
implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide ·
these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power B
can be read into Section 10(1 )(d) as suggested by the
learned Counsel. The provision contained in Section
10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may
receive complaints in relation to the matters specified
therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the c
matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate
remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the
State Commission with the power to take up the role of a
court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights
of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal D
discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court."
12. Dealing with the powers of the Chief Commissioner
and Commissioners under the persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act and
the Rules thereunder, this Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. E
Vinesh Kumar Bhasin - 2010 (4) SCC 368, held as follows:
"It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief
Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under
the Disabilities Act has power to issue any mandatory or F
prohibitory injunction or other interim directions. The fact
that the Disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers
of a civil court-for discharge of their functions (which include
power to look into complaints), does not enable them to
assume the other powers of a civil court which are not G
vested in them by the provisions of the Disabilities Act."
13. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that
the Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the
persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
by ensuring : (i) anti-discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A reservation and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of grievances.
The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not extend to
either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel a
caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste
certificate. Having regard to the sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of
B Article 338, the Commission could no doubt entertain and
enquire into any specific complaint about deprivation of any
rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such a
complaint was received, the Commission could enquire into
such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or
c State Government requiring effective implementation of the
safeguards and measures for the protection and welfare and
socio-economic development of scheduled tribes. This power
to enquire into 'deprivation of rights and safeguards of the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes' did not include the
D power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any
particular individual. In fact, as there was no effective
mechanism to verify the c~ste/tribe certificates issued to
individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil vs. Addi. Commissioner
(Tribal Development) - 1994 (6) SCC 241 directed
E constitution of scrutiny committees.
14. In Madhuri Patil, this Court held that on account of
false social status certificates being obtained by unscrupulous
individuals, and cornering the benefits meant for SCs and STs,
persons who genuinely belonged to scheduled castes/
F .scheduled tribes were denied the benefit of reservation in posts/
seats and other benefits extended to SCs and STs. It therefore,
felt that there was a need to streamline the procedure for
issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and approval
and issued the following directions :
G
"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.
H
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1063
. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee A
of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary
or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the
concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/
Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may,
and (Ill) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer s
who has intimate knowledge in the verification and
issuance of the social status certificates. In the case 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. c
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 D
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 E
case may be. He also should 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 F
the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged
in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes
relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological
traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the G
concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities 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 H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) ·12 S.C.R.
A 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
concerned educational institution in which the candidate
B is studying or employed ......... .
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,
c 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.
D
xxxx
This Court thus formulated a scherre for verification of tribal
status and held that any application for verification of tribal status
E as a scheduled tribe should be carried out by such
Committees. The verification of the validity of caste certificates
and determination of the caste status should therefore be done
by the Scrutiny Committees constituted as per the directions
in Madhuri Patil or in terms of any statute made by the
appropriate government in that behalf.
F
15. It is true that the Commission had ultimately directed
the state government to conduct the verification of the
genuineness of the scheduled tribe certificate obtained by the
first respondent and to initiate action for cancellation of his
G scheduled tribe certificate and also criminal action as provided
in law and submit an action taken report to the Commission
within 30 days. But this is preceded by a very lengthy order
which categorically records a finding that first respondent had
secured a false certificate. The order starts with the following
H caption: "Verification of community certificate of Shri Ajit
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1065
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
P.K.Jogi". The order discloses·that it had summoned various A
senior officers of the State Government and the first respondent
to produce the documents in regard to his caste status. The
order further states that it had held independent inquiry through
its State office to colle~t evidence to show that the first
respondent belonged to Satnami caste and not to Kanwar B
comrriunity.
I
The Commission has dealt with the objection .
that
it had no jurisdiction to determine the caste status of an
individual, referred to its duties and functions in detail and
concluded thus :
"Thus the Commission is fully empowered to enquire into C
any complaint relating to bogus community certificate which
would otherwise have the effect of depriving the genuine
ST candidates from getting admissions to professional
courses etc. or appointments to posts reserved for them
or from election to the elected bodies from the D
constituencies reserved for them. Since its inception, the
Commission has taken up enquiries in thousands of cases
of complaints of false caste certificates, either directly or
through its State Offices or the concerned agencies of the
State Governments and about 800 such cases are still E
pending with the Commission which are being pursued.
xxxxx
It is therefore clear that the objections raised by the
F
Respondent is not sustainable and the Commission is well
within its rights to enquire into the matter to fine the
genuineness of the ST certificate in possession of Shri
APK Jogi~ which enabled him to become an MLA from a
constituency reserved for the STs." ·
G
The order then considers the material in great detail and
records clear finding that the first respondent had obtained a
false certificate, vide para 24 which is extracted below :
"Based on the evidence available before the Commission, H.
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A it is clearly established that Late Shri Girdhari Jogi, while
Shri Sinati Jogi and his progeny continued to claim the
benefit of being SCs as Satnami caste, the grandfather
of Shri A.P.K Jogi, Shri Dulare Jogi and his progeny
converted to Christianity and thus became ineligible for the
B benefits available to the Scheduled Castes. (The
genealogical tree of the family is enclosed for ready
reference). However, Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, by fraudulently
claiming to belong to 'Kanwar' community managed to get
a ST certificate in 1967 from Additional Tehsildar, Pendra
c Road. This certificate was not registered in the Revenue
records and was thus a legally invalid document Shri Ajit
P. K. Jogi, who had subsequently joined Indian Police
Service and Indian Administrative Service, used his
influence to get the community certificate as ST and on his
own admission, contented for parliamentary elections and
D
Assembly elections from constituencies reserved for STs."
16. It is only after recording the said findings, the
Commission directed the State government to verify the
genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by first respondent
E and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate and also
initiate criminal action. All these were unwarranted. As noticed
above, the power under clause S(b) of Article 338 (or under any
of the other sub-clauses of clause 5 of Article 338) did not
entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry in regard to the caste
F stattJs of any particular individual, summon documents, and
record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If
such a complaint was received about the deprivation of the
rights and safeguards, it will have to refer the matter to the State
Government or the authority concerned with verification of
G caste/tribal status, to take necessary action. It can certainly
follow up the matter with the State Government or such authority
dealing with the matter to ensure that the complaint is inquired
into and appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government
or the authorities did not take action, the Commission could
H ·either itself or through the affected persons, initiate legal action
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1067
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
to ensure that there is a proper verification of the caste A
certificate, but it cannot undertake the exercise itself, as has
been done in this case. The contention that there was sufficient
material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope
of the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not
involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to the rights of parties B
or caste status of the parties. The same is the position even
under Article 338A (which was subsequently inserted) providing
for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with identical
duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be
sustained. The High Court was justified in setting aside the said c
order dated 16.10.2001.
Re : Questions (ii) to (iv)
17. This does not mean that the caste certificates of the
first respondent are not to be verified. The appellants allege that D
among the certificates obtained by the first respondent, the
certificates dated 6.6.1967 and 27.2.1984 were issued by the
Naib Tehsildar, who at the relevant point of time did not have
the authority to issue such certificates. With reference to the
certificate dated 27 .2.1984, it is also contended that the case E
number mentioned pertains to grant of an explosive licence to
one Gokul Prasad. In regard to certificates dated 6.3.1986 and
12.1.1993, it is pointed out that no case number had been
mentioned. In regard to the certificate dated 11.8.1999, it is
pointed out that Naib Tehsildar at Indore, was not competent F
to issue such a certificate in regard to a resident of Pendra
Road, Bilaspur. In regard to certificates dated 8.1.2001 and
20.9.2003 issued by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, it is
pointed out that the certificates are not in the required form and
not in accordance with the relevant guidelines for issuance of G
certificates. It is also alleged that on 8.4.1977, the Addi.
Tehsildar, Pendra Road had rejected the application of first
respondent for issue of a certificate showing that he belonged
to 'kanwar' Scheduled Tribe. It is also alleged that father and
mother of first respondent had entered into sale transactions H
on 12.8.1964, 21.9.1967 and 25.7.1979 describing themselves
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A as Christians and had not sought permission under section
165(6) of MPLR Code which was mandatory, if they were
tribals. We have referred to these averments only to point out
that serious allegations were made in regard to the certificates
obtained by the first respondent and the tribal status claimed
B by him. The certificates have never undergone a scrutiny by a
properly constituted authority. The fact that two writ petitions
were filed at some point of time, challenging the claim of first
respondent that he belongs to a scheduled tribe may not be
conclusive as the first writ petition was dismissed on the ground
c that it involved disputed questions of fact which could not be
gone into in a writ proceeding and the second writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that investigation into the allegations
of forged certificates was in progress. Therefore even though
the Commission was not entitled to hold an inquiry and record
a finding that first respondent did not belong to a scheduled
0
tribe, having regard to clause S(b) and (f) of Article 338, it had
the power and authority to require the State Government or the
caste verification Committee constituted by the State
Government, to examine the caste status claimed by the first
respondent. The correspondence initiated by the Commission
E clearly showed a request/direction for verification of the caste
of the first respondent was made by the Commission and the
state government had responded by stating that the claim of
first respondent that he belonged to a scheduled tribe and the
validity of social status certificates would be verified by the
F Scrutiny Committee.
18. The High Court was therefore not justified in holding
that in view of the disposal of earlier writ petitions by the High
Court, the dispute relating to tribal status of the first respondent
G had attained some kind of finality. On the facts and
circumstances, there was also no justification for the High Court
to either term the application given by the sixth respondent to
the Commission as politically motivated or direct the State
Government and the Commission to calculate the actual
H
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1069
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
expenses incurred in regard to the inquiry~nd recover the same A
from the sixth respondent.
Conclusion
19. We therefore allow these appeals in part as under :
B
(i) The order of the High Court dated 15.12.2006 to the
extent it quashes the order dated 16.10.2001 of the
Commission, is upheld.
(ii) The adverse observations by the High Court about the C
complaint by the sixth respondent, the inquiry by the
Commission, and the stand of the State Government and the
Collector before the High Court, being politically motivated, are
set aside.
(iii) The direction to the State Government and the D
Commission to calculate the actual cost incurred in prosecuting
the writ petition and directing the sixth respondent to pay the
actual costs plus Rs.10,000 is set aside.
(iv) In terms of the direction of the Commission, the State E
Government through a duly constituted Scrutiny Committee shall
now undertake the verification/scrutiny of the social status (tribal)
certificates issued to the first respondent showing him as
belonging to 'Kanwar' Scheduled Tribe and decide the matter
after giving due opportunity to the first respondent, uninfluenced F
by any observations by the Commission, High Court or this
Court. The State GovernmenUconcerned authorities shall be
entitled to take consequential action on the basis of the order/
report of the Scrutiny Committee.
R.P. Appeals partly allowed. G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes"Sign in to search