Supreme Court of India
NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 266
- Decided
- 4 April 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K MAHESHWARI
Holding
The High Court erred in exercising its writ jurisdiction to re‑appraise the factual findings of the Scrutiny Committee, and the Committee's validation order stands restored.
Summary
The appellant, Navneet Kaur, contested the validity of her "Mochi" Scheduled Caste certificate that had been approved by the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee in 2017, after her election to a reserved parliamentary seat was challenged on grounds of alleged fraud. The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, set aside the Committee's order, finding the supporting documents forged and cancelling the certificate. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was entitled to re‑appraise the factual findings of the Scrutiny Committee, which is vested with exclusive fact‑finding powers under the 2000 Act and 2012 Rules. It held that the Committee had duly applied its mind, complied with procedural safeguards, and that the High Court’s interference amounted to an impermissible roving inquiry. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Committee’s validation order and set aside the High Court judgment, emphasizing the limited scope of writ jurisdiction to jurisdictional errors, not factual re‑evaluation.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Scrutiny Committee's findings by re‑appraising the evidence under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee's order validating the caste certificate is final and immune from interference except for jurisdictional defects.
- Whether the High Court's intervention amounted to an impermissible substitution of the Committee's factual findings.
- Whether the Presidential Order on Scheduled Castes can be indirectly altered by the Court in the context of the appellant's caste claim.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art. 226
- 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, 2000s. 6, s. 7, s. 9
- Scheduled Castes Order, 1950
Subjects
Caste validity certificateExclusive domain of Scrutiny CommitteeFact finding authorityPrinciples of Natural JusticeSupervisory jurisdictionGround of insufficiency or adequacy of materialArticle 226Writ of certiorariPresidential Order
Judgment
[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
* Author
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 self-
speaking 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. For the purpose of
case at hand, Rule 13, Rule 14 and Rule 17 are relevant and thus
are reproduced below for ready reference –
Rule 13 – Report of Vigilance Cell and Issues to be
dealt with.
(1) Vigilance Cell Officer(s) shall submit report upon
investigating into the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category claim, referred
to it, –
(a) by visiting permanent place of residence
and conducting domestic inquiry; or
(b) by recording statements of respected and
responsible persons from concerned area,
including representatives of Local Self
Government, Police Patil, etc.; or
(c) by collecting information, as part of
recording statement, as regards to name,
age, educational qualification, occupation,
existing place of residence and information
regarding properties (existing and disposed)
of family members of applicant or claimant;
or
(d) by collecting information including
the sociological, anthropological and
ethnological (anthropological moorings
and ethnological kinship), genetical traits
of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
138 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Backward Classes or Special Backward
Category, if any; or
(e) by personally visiting Office of the
Competent Authority or revenue or school
or other concerned offices.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision
of these rules, –
(a) the Vigilance Cell shall not record concluding
remark or opinion, since vigilance inquiry
is meant for internal assistance to the
Scrutiny Committee and adjudication
of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward
Category status is exclusive domain of the
Scrutiny Committee;
(b) finding recorded and opinion expressed,
if any, by the Vigilance Officer shall not
be binding on Scrutiny Committee nor
could be used as evidence, in support
of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward
Category claim.
Rule 14 – Verification of Caste Certificate.
Any person desirous of availing of the benefits and
concessions provided to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Categories for any of the purposes as mentioned
in Section 3 of the Act shall, invariably submit an application
in FORM–16 with an affidavit in FORM–3 and FORM–17
for students; FORM–18 with an affidavit in FORM–3 and
FORM–19 for employees or service purpose; FORM–20
with an affidavit in FORM–3 and FORM–21 for election
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 139
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
purpose; or FORM–22 with an affidavit in FORM–3 and
FORM–23 for other purpose, as per his requirement, to the
concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste
claim and issue of Caste Validity Certificate, well in time :
Provided that, the Caste Certificate issued to migrant
from other State and Caste or Community Certificates
issued by Authorities of the States other than the State of
Maharashtra, shall not be verified by such Caste Scrutiny
Committee.
Rule 17 – Procedure of Scrutiny Committee.
(1) On receipt of application, the Scrutiny Committee
shall ensure that the application and the information
supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to
carry out scrutiny of the application.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
the claimant or applicant or complainant shall be
personally responsible for removal of objections
raised by Scrutiny Committee, if any, within two
weeks or within such extended period, which shall
not be more than six weeks, failing which the claim
or application or complaint shall be disposed of, by
appreciating available records and such decision may
be communicated to the applicant by the Scrutiny
Committee.
(3) The incomplete application may be rejected by
recording reasons.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
it will be the sole responsibility of the claimant or
applicant to attend the dates of hearing, either
personally or through duly authorized representative.
(5) The roznama of the Scrutiny committee shall be
self-evident as to what transpired on a particular
day and it shall be signed by all the members of the
Scrutiny Committee.
(6) If the Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the
statement of applicant or claimant submitted in the
140 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
form of Affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18
Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well
as other evidence and documents furnished along
with any application or proposal is satisfied, about the
genuineness of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism or De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Classes
or Special Backward Category claim the scrutiny
committee shall forthwith issue Validity Certificate in
FORM-20 without enquiry by vigilance cell.
(7) If the Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the
statement of applicant or claimant submitted in the
form of Affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18
Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well
as other evidence and documents furnished along
with any application or proposal, is of the opinion
that the documents do not satisfy or conclusively
prove the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism or De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Classes
or Special Backward Category claim, the Scrutiny
Committee by mentioning the same in the roznama,
shall refer such case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying
out suitable inquiry, as is deemed fit, by the Scrutiny
Committee:
Provided that, findings recorded by the Vigilance Cell
shall not be binding on the Scrutiny Committee, as
the vigilance inquiry is meant for internal assistance
to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee
shall record its reasons for discarding the report of
Vigilance Cell.
(8) The Vigilance Cell shall complete the inquiry within
six weeks, thereby making suitable inquiry, on all
the issues or as specifically directed by the Scrutiny
Committee.
(9) Vigilance Inquiry shall be made for respective
territorial area of jurisdiction of concerned Scrutiny
Committee.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 141
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
(10) In case of those cases which are referred to Vigilance
Cell, upon considering the report submitted by
Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied
about the genuineness of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism or De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category
claim of claimant or applicant, it shall be lawful to
decide the matter finally by its written decision, and
forward the copy of decision and Validity Certificate
in FORM–24, to the concerned parties or authority,
by preserving its scanned copy (in electronic form).
(11) (i) In case of those cases which are refereed to
Vigilance Cell, upon considering the report of Vigilance
Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about
the claim of the applicant, it shall call upon the
applicant to prove his Caste claim, by discharging
his burden, as contemplated under Section 8 of the
Act, by issuing a notice in FORM–25 coupled with
copy of report of Vigilance Inquiry;
(ii) After issuance of notice, if applicant requests,
by way of written application, for copies of vigilance
inquiry report or any other document or prays for
adjournment, reasonable time for final hearing or
for submitting written submission, it may be granted;
(iii) After affording an opportunity of hearing, Scrutiny
Committee shall, –
(a) being satisfied regarding the genuineness
of the Caste claim, decide the matter
finally, upon appreciation of evidence,
by its reasoned decision, i.e., decision of
committee and issue Certificate of Validity,
in FORM–24; and forward the same to
concerned authorities within thirty days, by
preserving its scanned copy (in electronic
form);
(b) being not satisfied about the genuineness
of the claim and veracity of the Caste
142 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Certificate, it shall pass its decision, thereby
cancelling and confiscating the original
Caste Certificate and invalidating the Caste
or Tribe claim of the applicant or claimant;
(c) upon invalidation of Caste or Tribe claim,
the Caste Certificate under inquiry shall be
stamped as “cancelled and confiscated”,
and forward the same along with copy
of decision, to the Competent Authority
and concerned parties, by preserving its
scanned copy (in electronic form);
(d) after conclusion of the hearing of the case,
the work of writing of the decision shall
be assigned to one of its members by the
Scrutiny Committee;
(e) in case of difference of opinion amongst
the members of Committee, on the main
order of majority, the dissenting member
shall write his separate order;
(f) The name of member of Committee to
whom work of writing final order was
assigned, shall be mentioned in the
roznama. Moreover, front page of final
order shall disclose the date of the order.
(12) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
it is incumbent on the applicant to disclose all the
true and correct information, including disclosure of
adverse entries or material, failing which, it shall be
lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw adverse
inference.
(13) If the Scrutiny Committee finds and concludes that
the report of Vigilance Cell is false or unrealistic,
it shall record the reason in decision and direct
appropriate action as contemplated under Section
14, read with Section 11 and 12 of the Act and
also recommend Departmental inquiry against such
Vigilance Officer:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 143
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
Provided that, an opportunity of being heard be
granted to the concerned Vigilance Cell officer prior
to any direction for appropriate action. This hearing
shall be independent to adjudication of Caste or
Tribe claim.
12. A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and Rules of 2012
Rules, makes it clear that a detailed procedure has been prescribed for
the Scrutiny Committee to deal with the claim of an applicant seeking
validation of caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority. The
power to deal with such 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. For the purposes of verification,
the Scrutiny Committee has all the powers of Civil Court while trying
a civil suit and it can further take internal assistance of Vigilance Cell
for verification in those cases as and when needed by the Committee.
It is pertinent here to note that, as per Rule13(2)(b), the findings
recorded, and opinion expressed by the Vigilance Cell shall not be
binding on Scrutiny Committee and nor could be used in evidence
for the purpose of claim. Further, Rule 17(6) provides that if the
Scrutiny Committee upon appreciation of statement of applicant in
prescribed format as well as other evidence and documents furnished
along with it, is satisfied about the genuineness of same, then it shall
forthwith issue the validity certificate in FORM–20 without enquiry by
Vigilance Cell. In other words, the said Rule provides for subjective
satisfaction of the Scrutiny Committee when a claim is made and
does not mandate verification in each case by the Vigilance Cell. At
this juncture, Section 7(2) of the 2000 Act also assumes significance.
It fortifies the exclusive domain of Scrutiny Committee and deals with
the finality of the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee under the
2000 Act stating that the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee shall
be final and it shall not be open to challenge before any authority
or Court except High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of
India. The said language used in sub clause (2) clearly reflects the
intention of legislature to ensure minimal interference with the orders
of Scrutiny Committee.
13. Now reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee
admitted the claim of Appellant vide order dated 03.11.2017 based
on its subjective satisfaction regarding two documents namely, (i)
bona-fide certificate issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science and
144 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Commerce in favour of Appellant’s grandfather mentioning his caste
as ‘Sikh-Chamar’; and (ii) the Indenture of Tenancy of year 1932
in favour of great grandfather of Appellant as his residence proof,
proving his migration from Punjab to Maharashtra prior to issuance of
Presidential Order in 1950. The Scrutiny Committee also extensively
referred to pedigree table of Appellant tracing the genealogy of caste
of Appellant’s forefathers as ‘Mochi’. The said fact was also affirmed
by Vigilance squad which made a personal site visit in Punjab and
confirmed the truthfulness/genuineness of the contents of the pedigree
documents from the locals as well as authorities concerned. Although
the said documents were not admitted by the Scrutiny Committee for
them not being in ‘complete form’, however, notably these documents
were neither objected nor debated by the complainant. Be that as it
may, once the Scrutiny Committee after hearing the contesting parties
and evaluating the documents on record reached on conclusion based
on its satisfaction and application of mind, the question that arises
for consideration of this Court in the particular facts of this case is
that how far the High Court was justified in completely overturning
the findings of Scrutiny Committee in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by re-appraisal of the entire
evidence on record?
14. The entire sum and substance of the Respondents’ arguments
before this Court and High Court is that the Appellant has forged and
fabricated the documents to obtain her caste validity certificate. In
our view, it is a disputed question of facts and can only be sustained
by leading evidence. Admittedly in the present case, on remand by
High Court, the parties appeared before the Scrutiny Committee,
filed objections and led evidence. They were heard and after due
consideration of all the material brought on record, the Scrutiny
Committee, delineated the objections and passed the detailed order
validating the caste certificate of the Appellant primarily on the anvil
of report submitted by Vigilance Cell and report of home enquiry and
also held that other documents produced by the contesting parties
are inadmissible. So far as question of admissibility of bona-fide
certificate dated 11.02.2014 issued in favour of Appellant’s grandfather
is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee recorded its satisfaction and
formed opinion that the said certificate is a competent evidence and
held it as admissible after verification of the students’ original register
which recorded the date of admission of Appellant’s grandfather as
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 145
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
16.11.1946. The complainants have not raised any oral or written
objection regarding this document before the Scrutiny Committee. The
primary grievance of the complainants before the Scrutiny Committee
was that they were not allowed to cross-examine the Vice-Principal of
the said college who came to present the original record. However,
the present case herein is not that the said grievance was not
considered by the Committee or that it had a biased or favourable
approach towards the applicant. A perusal of the order passed by
Scrutiny Committee reveals that the request of complainants for cross-
examination of Vice-Principal was not accepted for the reason that
the said person came as a presenter of the original student register
on behalf of Principal of the college, and being representative, he
does not automatically become witness of the applicant.
15. Now, when the Scrutiny Committee which is principally tasked with
the fact-finding exercise for validation of caste claim, had applied its
mind and reached a conclusion, then in such a situation, whether a
roving enquiry by High Court was required? It is well settled that High
Courts as well as Supreme Court should refrain themselves from
deeper probe into factual issues like an appellate body unless the
inferences made by the concerned authority suffers from perversity
on the face of it or are impermissible in the eyes of law. In the
instant case, the order passed by Scrutiny Committee reflects due
appreciation of evidence and application of mind and in absence of
any allegation of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the
findings of Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained.
16. In view of the above discussion, if we take a look at the findings
of the High Court in said perspective and deal with each findings
individually, it would rather burden the judgment unnecessarily and
therefore, we deem it appropriate to confine our analysis only to
those findings by which the High Court has upset the reasonings
adopted by Scrutiny Committee to admit those two documents, i.e.,
the bona-fide certificate of Appellant’s grandfather and indenture of
tenancy of year 1932 to allow the claim of Appellant. With respect
to bona-fide certificate, the High Court opined that the Scrutiny
Committee did not deal with the observations made by Vigilance
Cell that the original student register was not produced by the Vice-
Principal for inspection and that the handwriting and ink of the last
two entries made in the said register did not match. The High Court
itself perused the coloured photocopy of the last page of the register
146 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and affirmed the difference in handwriting and the ink by appreciating
the said evidence. On the other hand, insofar as the indenture of
tenancy of year 1932 is concerned, the High Court in contradiction
with the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the alleged rent
agreement was relied upon by Appellant much later in time, coupled
with the fact that it did not make any sense for a landlord and tenant
in a private rent agreement to mention the caste of tenant. The High
Court further observed that to substantiate the rent agreement, the
Scrutiny Committee heavily relied upon the affidavit of one Smt. Radha
Adukiya, i.e., the granddaughter of the erstwhile landlord who rented
the property in favour of Appellant’s grandfather. In the said affidavit,
Smt. Akudia deposed that her grandfather rented the property in favour
of Appellant’s grandfather and further identified his signatures too.
Smt. Akudiya at the time of deposition herself was about 82 years
of age and she recognized the signatures of her grandfather on an
agreement allegedly executed 55 years back. In view of the same,
the High Court was of the opinion that Scrutiny Committee failed in
not carrying out an enquiry in finding out the authenticity of the said
rent agreement. With these primary findings, the High Court quashed
and set-aside the order of Scrutiny Committee.
17. Having perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and
findings recorded by it to reach its subjective satisfaction with respect
to claim of Appellant, at this juncture, if we look at the whole exercise
carried out by High Court from the perspective of settled principles
of law for invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution
of India, particularly in relation of writ of certiorari, it leaves us with
no scope of doubt that the High Court has clearly overstepped by
re-appreciating the evidence in absence of any allegation of mala-fide
or perversity. As fairly settled by this Court in catena of judgments,
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
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 147
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
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.
18. As per the ratio of larger Bench judgment of this Court in ‘Dayaram
Vs. Sudhir Batham and Others., (2012) 1 SCC 333’, it reveals that
the Court while answering the question as to whether the Civil Courts’
jurisdiction was rightly barred by judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil
(supra), observed that a Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating
authority like a Court or Tribunal, rather it is an administrative body
which verifies the fact, investigates into a specific caste claim and
ascertains whether the caste claim is correct or not. It was further
observed that permitting civil suits to challenge such proceedings with
the provisions of appeal and further appeals would defeat the purpose
of the scheme. However, such decisions were rightly made available
to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India ‘which may be within the parameters for invoking the writ
jurisdiction by High Court’ in the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil
(supra). Though at the same time, the said observation does not
explicitly give a wide power in a writ of certiorari which is not within
the purview of issuance of such writ merely because of decision of
Scrutiny Committee is under challenge.
19. In sum and substance, the writ of certiorari is expended as a remedy
and is intended to cure jurisdictional error, if any, committed by the
Courts/forums below. It should not be used by superior Court to
substitute its own views by getting into fact-finding exercise unless
warranted. [See Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic
Sciences and Another Vs. Bikartan Das and Others, 2023
SCC OnLine 996 – Para 51 and 52; Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.
Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 – Para 7]. At this juncture, it would
also be profitable to refer relevant extract from judgment delivered
by this Court in ‘Indian Overseas Bank’ (supra), wherein para 17,
it was observed as thus –
“17. ……..The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding
authority duly constituted for the purpose and which
ordinarily should be considered to have become final,
cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been
based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible
148 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at
any rate, as long as they are based upon such materials
which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground
that there is yet another view which can be reasonably
and possibly undertaken……”
Such being the situation, in the instant case, the High Court went
into a probe regarding credibility of the opinion of the Scrutiny
Committee because the writ Court felt the need to substitute it’s own
views. In case if the findings of the Scrutiny Committee are based
on the materials specified under Rule 16 followed by its subjective
satisfaction, then exercise of jurisdiction under writ of certiorari to
quash the order of validation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee
is unwarranted and uncalled for.
20. In a recent reference in ‘Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti’ (supra), while answering the question as to ‘whether paramount
importance should be given to the affinity test while adjudicating
upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste certificate issued by a
Competent Authority, or in other words, whether the affinity test is
a litmus test for deciding a caste claim’, this Court observed that if
the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied with the documents, it need not
mechanically forward the same to the Vigilance Cell for verification
in a routine manner. Even as per Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Rules,
the Scrutiny Committee is not required to send every document to
Vigilance Cell. It is only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an
enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant,
it may refer to Vigilance Cell. Therefore, in our considered view, the
observations made by the High Court in the case at hand regarding
not sending the documents to Vigilance Cell is not justified.
21. Lastly, the documents which are furnished by an applicant before the
Scrutiny Committee are a reference point for the Scrutiny Committee
to verify the caste claim of an Applicant. In such a case, where
the Applicant is tracing the caste genealogy based on documents
from pre-independence era, the task of Scrutiny Committee is to
validate or reject a claim of validity certificate based on assessment
of documents that are filed by the Applicant. More so, the Scrutiny
Committee under Rule 4(3) of the 2012 Rules can even allow caste
claim without any supporting documents. Hence, as already discussed
above, such adjudication is kept within the exclusive domain of
Scrutiny Committee under Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 149
Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.
State of Maharashtra and Other
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that High Court inadvertently undertook an erroneous
exercise of appreciating evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India and swayed itself into
a roving inquiry which was not expected as per settled legal
position. At the cost of repetition, we again observe that under
Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules, 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
High Court ought not to have interfered, especially when Scrutiny
Committee had followed the due procedure under Rule 12, 17
and 18 of the 2012 Rules and that there was nothing perverse
about a finding of fact.
23. In the instant case, 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, in our
considered opinion, the order of Scrutiny Committee did not merit
any interference by the High Court in a ‘writ of certiorari’ under Article
226 of Constitution of India.
24. So far as question as to judicial scope to tinker with Presidential
Order is concerned, there is no quarrel that Presidential Order cannot
be amended directly or indirectly. However, the whole argument of
Respondents to the effect interference by this Court would amount to
fiddling with the Presidential Order is not sustainable for the reason
that, the case of the Appellant neither calls for any inquiry into a
sub-caste nor does it amend the Presidential Order. The Appellant
had claimed ‘Mochi’, the Scrutiny Committee validated and granted
the ‘Mochi’ caste certificate and ‘Mochi’ caste is clearly mentioned in
Entry 11 of the Presidential Order. The argument of the Respondents
that a reserved category in one State cannot be granted benefit of
reservation in another State has no bearing in the present case since
in the instant case, the Appellant did not claim ‘Mochi’ caste based
on her caste in some other State. Rather, the claim was for ‘Mochi’
based on genealogical caste history of Appellant’s forefathers. The
Scrutiny Committee has verified the claim of Appellant holding that
150 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appellant belongs to ‘Mochi’ caste in accordance with Entry 11 of
Presidential Order as application to Maharashtra.
25. Accordingly, in the light of discussion made hereinabove and
considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant appeals
stand allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court
stands set-aside. The validation order dated 03.11.2017 passed by
the Scrutiny Committee is restored. Pending application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Caste validity certificate"Sign in to search