LEGAL ISSUE: Consequences of securing public employment with a false caste certificate.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors.

Judgment Date: 6 July 2017

Date of the Judgment: 6 July 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 628

Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI, N.V. Ramana, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J

Can an individual who secures public employment using a false caste certificate be allowed to retain their position? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, dealing with the consequences of individuals falsely claiming to belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes to gain employment. This judgment clarifies the legal position on such matters, emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional principles. The bench comprised Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice N.V. Ramana, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case involves numerous appeals where individuals obtained public employment using caste certificates that were later found to be invalid. These individuals claimed to belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes to secure jobs. Upon investigation, these claims were invalidated by Scrutiny Committees, which led to the termination of their services. The individuals then approached the High Courts, seeking protection of their employment, often citing the lapse of time and other equitable considerations.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether these individuals, who had secured employment through false caste claims, could be protected by the courts, especially considering the constitutional mandate of reservations for marginalized communities. The Food Corporation of India (FCI) was one of the parties involved, with Jagdish Balaram Bahira being one of the respondents who had obtained employment as a Messenger using a false caste certificate.

Timeline

Date Event
24 February 1981 Government of Maharashtra issued a GR prescribing procedure for obtaining caste certificates and validity certificates.
4 September 1985 Division Bench of the High Court held that Halba-Koshti constituted a sub-division of the tribe “Halba-Halbi”.
2 September 1994 Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, emphasizing the need for scrutiny of caste claims.
28 November 2000 Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind held that the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is; and no evidence could be let in to urge that a tribe or tribal community or its part constituted a part of a tribe which was specifically designated.
23 May 2001 The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 received presidential assent.
17 October 2001 Notification issued to bring the Maharashtra Act into force from 18 October 2001.
6 July 2017 Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions:

  • The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950: These orders list the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for each state, providing the basis for constitutional reservations.
  • Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India: These articles empower the President to specify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively.
  • 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: This act provides a statutory framework for regulating the issuance of caste certificates and the verification of caste claims in Maharashtra.
    • Section 3: Requires individuals claiming to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe to apply for a caste certificate.
    • Section 4: Empowers the competent authority to issue caste certificates.
    • Section 6: Mandates the constitution of Scrutiny Committees for verifying caste certificates.
    • Section 7: Allows Scrutiny Committees to cancel and confiscate false caste certificates. “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…the Scrutiny Committee may…cancel and confiscate the certificate…”
    • Section 8: Places the burden of proving caste on the claimant.
    • Section 10: Specifies the consequences of invalidating a caste certificate, including debarment from educational institutions and discharge from employment. “Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes…secures admission in any educational institution…or secures any appointment in the Government…by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred…or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith…”
    • Section 11: Defines offences and penalties for obtaining false caste certificates.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants (Individuals with invalidated caste claims):

  • Appointments made before 28 November 2000 should be protected based on the directions in the State of Maharashtra vs. Milind [(2001) 1 SCC 4] judgment, which stated that final appointments before this date should remain unaffected. They argued that this was based on the doctrine of prospective overruling.

  • The Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 is not retrospective and should not apply to appointments made before its enforcement. They argued that the Act is penal in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively, citing Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

  • While Section 7 of the Maharashtra Act allows scrutiny of certificates issued before or after the Act, Sections 10 and 11 are prospective and do not apply to prior appointments.

  • Halba-Koshtis were socially and officially recognized as a sub-tribe of Halba-Halbi until the Milind judgment, hence certificates issued before 28 November 2000 should not be considered false.

  • Section 11, being a penal provision, should not apply to certificates issued before 18 October 2001.

  • A government resolution from 15 January 1995 protected appointments made before that date, even if the caste claim was invalidated.

  • They also relied on an office memorandum from 10 August 2010, from the Union Government, which stated that Halba/Halbi/Koshti appointments made before 28 November 2000 should not be affected.

  • Additionally, they cited a circular from 21 October 2015, from the State of Maharashtra, which directed that employees appointed between 15 January 1995 and 17 October 2001 should not be terminated until further orders.

See also  Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022)

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents (State and other employing authorities):

  • The respondents argued that the appointments were made on the basis of false caste certificates and that such appointments are void ab initio. They emphasized that the constitutional scheme of reservation is to provide benefits to genuine members of the reserved categories and not to imposters.

  • The State argued that the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, particularly sections 7 and 10, authorized the Scrutiny Committee to cancel false caste certificates and withdraw benefits secured on the basis of such certificates, irrespective of when the certificates were issued.

  • They contended that the directions in Milind were under Article 142 and cannot be applied universally.

Sub-Submissions by Parties

Main Submission Appellant’s Sub-Submissions Respondent’s Sub-Submissions
Protection of Appointments before 28 November 2000
  • Milind judgment protects final appointments.
  • Appointments before this date should not be disturbed.
  • Doctrine of prospective overruling applies.
  • Milind directions were under Article 142.
  • Cannot be universally applied.
Retrospective Application of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001
  • Act is not retrospective.
  • Penal nature prevents retrospective application.
  • Sections 10 and 11 are prospective.
  • Section 7 allows scrutiny of all certificates.
  • Section 10 consequences flow from invalidation.
  • No new burdens or impairment of obligations.
Validity of Halba-Koshti Certificates
  • Halba-Koshtis were socially recognized as Halba-Halbi.
  • Certificates before 28 November 2000 not false.
  • False claims undermine reservation purpose.
  • Benefits must go to genuine members.
Government Resolutions and Memorandums
  • GR of 15 January 1995 protects prior appointments.
  • Union Government memorandum protects prior appointments.
  • State circular prevents termination.
  • Circulars cannot override constitutional or statutory norms.
  • Protection of usurpers is against the constitutional scheme.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

  1. Whether the directions issued in paragraph 38 of the Milind judgment were in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution?
  2. What was the regime that held the field since the Madhuri Patil judgment?
  3. Whether the decisions in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and Dattatray laid down the principle that invalidation of a caste claim renders the appointment void?
  4. Whether the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 provides a statutory framework for regulating caste certificates?
  5. Whether the power under Section 7 of the Act allows the Scrutiny Committee to verify caste certificates issued before or after the enforcement of the Act?
  6. Whether the withdrawal of benefits is a necessary consequence of invalidation of a caste claim?
  7. Whether the decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini are correct in law?
  8. Whether Section 11 of the Act is prospective or retrospective?
  9. Whether the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone is correct?
  10. Whether the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be exercised to defeat legislative mandate?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether the directions issued in paragraph 38 of the Milind judgment were in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution? Yes, the directions were issued under Article 142.
What was the regime that held the field since the Madhuri Patil judgment? The regime envisaged a detailed procedure for issuance, scrutiny, and cancellation of caste certificates, and for withdrawal of benefits.
Whether the decisions in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and Dattatray laid down the principle that invalidation of a caste claim renders the appointment void? Yes, these judgments laid down that appointments based on false caste claims are void.
Whether the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 provides a statutory framework for regulating caste certificates? Yes, the Act provides a statutory framework for regulating the issuance and verification of caste certificates.
Whether the power under Section 7 of the Act allows the Scrutiny Committee to verify caste certificates issued before or after the enforcement of the Act? Yes, the Scrutiny Committee can verify certificates issued before or after the Act’s enforcement.
Whether the withdrawal of benefits is a necessary consequence of invalidation of a caste claim? Yes, withdrawal of benefits is a necessary consequence of invalidation.
Whether the decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini are correct in law? No, these decisions are overruled.
Whether Section 11 of the Act is prospective or retrospective? Section 11 is prospective, applying to offenses after the Act’s enforcement.
Whether the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone is correct? No, the judgment is overruled.
Whether the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be exercised to defeat legislative mandate? No, the power under Article 142 must be exercised with regard to legislative mandate.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was used
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241] Supreme Court of India Established the need for scrutiny of caste claims and the procedure for it.
Milind Sharad Katware vs. State of Maharashtra [(1986) 1 Bom CR 403] Bombay High Court Held that Halba-Koshti was a sub-division of Halba-Halbi. (Overruled by State of Maharashtra vs. Milind)
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind [(2001) 1 SCC 4] Supreme Court of India Held that the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is, and no evidence could be let in to urge that a tribe or tribal community or its part constituted a part of a tribe which was specifically designated.
R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 105] Supreme Court of India Held that appointments based on false caste certificates are void ab initio.
Bank of India vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar [(2005) 7 SCC 690] Supreme Court of India Reiterated that employment obtained through false caste claims is void.
Additional General Manager/Human Resources, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Suresh Ramakrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336] Supreme Court of India Held that services cannot be protected based on an undertaking not to claim benefits in the future.
State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay K. Nimje [(2007) 14 SCC 481] Supreme Court of India Held that the 2000 Act prevails over any government resolution.
Union of India vs. Dattatray [(2008) 4 SCC 612] Supreme Court of India Reaffirmed that employment obtained by making a false claim regarding caste/tribe must be cancelled.
Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi vs. The State of Maharashtra [(2008) 5 SCC 652] Supreme Court of India Held that the protection in Milind was under Article 142.
Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors [(2006) 3 SC 257] Supreme Court of India Held that procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud on the Constitution.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr [(2007) 1 SCC 80] Supreme Court of India Observed that taking undue advantage of reservation is a fraud on the Constitution.
Regional Manager, Central Bank vs. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir [AIR (2008) SC 3266] Supreme Court of India Stated that equity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate.
Sandip Subhash Parate vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 7 SCC 501] Supreme Court of India Exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to protect a student’s degree. (Overruled)
Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Jagdishkumar Vithalrao Panjankar [C. A .No. 233 of 2007] Supreme Court of India Exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to protect services of an employee. (Overruled)
State of Maharashtra vs. Om Raj [(2007) 14 SCC 488] Supreme Court of India Protected employment obtained on the basis of a claim to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe though the individuals concerned were found to be Koshti. (Overruled)
Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54] Supreme Court of India Exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to protect service based on long tenure. (Overruled)
Punjab National Bank vs. Vilas Govindrao Bokade [(2008) 14 SCC 545] Supreme Court of India Extended protection of service. (Overruled)
Vijaykumar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 14 SCC 489] Supreme Court of India Extended protection of service. (Overruled)
Damodhar vs. Secretary, Industrial, Energy & Labour Department [(2010) 15 SCC 537] Supreme Court of India Extended protection of service. (Overruled)
Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 9 SCC 798] Supreme Court of India Extended protection of service. (Overruled)
Dattu Namdev Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 1 SCC 549] Supreme Court of India Extended protection of service. (Overruled)
Kavita Vasant Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 8 SCC 430] Supreme Court of India Protected services where no fraud was found. (Overruled)
Shalini Gajananrao Dalal vs. New English High School Association [(2013) 16 SCC 526] Supreme Court of India Imported a requirement of dishonest intent. (Overruled)
R. Unnikrishnan vs. V. K. Mahanudevan [(2014) 4 SCC 434] Supreme Court of India Protected services where there was no evidence of lack of bona fides.
B. H. Khawas vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 715] Supreme Court of India Rejected the submission that all appointments before 28 November 2000 must be protected.
Ramesh Suresh Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 1 Mh. L.J 423] Bombay High Court Held that a false claim leads to disqualification.
Sujit Vasant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 3 Mh. L J 1109] Bombay High Court Considered the provisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001. (Overruled)
Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 2 Mh. L.J. 788] Bombay High Court Held that the directions in Milind were under Article 142. (Overruled)
Priyanka Omprakash Panwar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 4 Mh L.J. 847] Bombay High Court Construed Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act.
Apurva Ashok Gokhale vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 1 Mh. LJ 139] Bombay High Court Followed the decision in Priyanka Omprakash Panwar.
Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 1 Mh L.J. 457] Bombay High Court Held that protection of service can be granted after invalidation of caste claim. (Overruled)
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Smithi vs. State of Kerala [(1994) 1 SCC 359] Supreme Court of India Held that the Thandan community was listed in the Scheduled Castes Order 1950.
Anurag Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2016) 9 SCC 426] Supreme Court of India Held that judicial discretion can be exercised only when there are two or more possible lawful solutions.
Nidhi Kaim and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others [(2017) 4 SCC 1] Supreme Court of India Held that conferring rights on those who participated in a plan to circumvent norms would be espousing the cause of the unfair.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Order in AIADMK Leadership Dispute (23 Feb 2023)

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appointments before 28 November 2000 should be protected based on the Milind judgment. Rejected. The court clarified that the directions in Milind were under Article 142 and not a universal rule.
The Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 is not retrospective. Partially accepted. The court held that while Section 7 is retrospective, Section 11 is prospective. Section 10 is a consequence of Section 7 and not retrospective.
Halba-Koshtis were socially recognized as Halba-Halbi until the Milind judgment. Rejected. The court emphasized that the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is.
Government resolutions and memorandums protect prior appointments. Rejected. The court held that such resolutions cannot override constitutional or statutory norms.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241]: The court upheld the need for scrutiny of caste claims as established in this case.
  • State of Maharashtra vs. Milind [(2001) 1 SCC 4]: The court clarified that the directions in Milind were under Article 142 and not a universal rule. The court upheld the ratio that the Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is and no evidence can be let in to urge that a tribe or tribal community or its part constituted a part of a tribe which was specifically designated.
  • R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 105]: The court upheld the principle that appointments based on false caste certificates are void ab initio.
  • Bank of India vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar [(2005) 7 SCC 690]: The court reiterated that employment obtained through false caste claims is void.
  • Additional General Manager/Human Resources, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Suresh Ramakrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336]: The court upheld that services cannot be protected based on an undertaking not to claim benefits in the future.
  • State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay K. Nimje [(2007) 14 SCC 481]: The court upheld that the 2000 Act prevails over any government resolution.
  • Union of India vs. Dattatray [(2008) 4 SCC 612]: The court reaffirmed that employment obtained by making a false claim regarding caste/tribe must be cancelled.
  • Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi vs. The State of Maharashtra [(2008) 5 SCC 652]: The court upheld that the protection in Milind was under Article 142.
  • Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors [(2006) 3 SC 257]: The court upheld that procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud on the Constitution.
  • State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr [(2007) 1 SCC 80]: The court upheld that taking undue advantage of reservation is a fraud on the Constitution.
  • Regional Manager, Central Bank vs. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir [AIR (2008) SC 3266]: The court upheld that equity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate.
  • Sandip Subhash Parate vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 7 SCC 501]: The court overruled this case.
  • Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Jagdishkumar Vithalrao Panjankar [C. A .No. 233 of 2007]: The court overruled this case.
  • State of Maharashtra vs. Om Raj [(2007) 14 SCC 488]: The court overruled this case.
  • Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54]: The court overruled this case.
  • Punjab National Bank vs. Vilas Govindrao Bokade [(2008) 14 SCC 545]: The court overruled this case.
  • Vijaykumar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 14 SCC 489]: The court overruled this case.
  • Damodhar vs. Secretary, Industrial, Energy & Labour Department [(2010) 15 SCC 537]: The court overruled this case.
  • Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao vs. State of Maharashtra [(201(2011) 9 SCC 798]: The court overruled this case.
  • Dattu Namdev Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 1 SCC 549]: The court overruled this case.
  • Kavita Vasant Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 8 SCC 430]: The court overruled this case.
  • Shalini Gajananrao Dalal vs. New English High School Association [(2013) 16 SCC 526]: The court overruled this case.
  • R. Unnikrishnan vs. V. K. Mahanudevan [(2014) 4 SCC 434]: The court distinguished this case.
  • B. H. Khawas vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 715]: The court upheld the decision that all appointments before 28 November 2000 must not be protected.
  • Ramesh Suresh Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 1 Mh. L.J 423]: The court upheld the decision that a false claim leads to disqualification.
  • Sujit Vasant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 3 Mh. L J 1109]: The court overruled this case.
  • Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 2 Mh. L.J. 788]: The court overruled this case.
  • Priyanka Omprakash Panwar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 4 Mh L.J. 847]: The court followed this case.
  • Apurva Ashok Gokhale vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 1 Mh. LJ 139]: The court followed this case.
  • Arun Vishwanath Sonone vs. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 1 Mh L.J. 457]: The court overruled this case.
  • Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Smithi vs. State of Kerala [(1994) 1 SCC 359]: The court referred to this case.
  • Anurag Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2016) 9 SCC 426]: The court referred to this case.
  • Nidhi Kaim and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others [(2017) 4 SCC 1]: The court referred to this case.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies "Other Valuable Articles" Under Section 69A of Income Tax Act: M/s. D.N. Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2023)

Decision

The Supreme Court held that:

  • The directions issued in paragraph 38 of the Milind judgment were in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
  • The regime since the Madhuri Patil judgment envisaged a detailed procedure for issuance, scrutiny, and cancellation of caste certificates, and for withdrawal of benefits.
  • The decisions in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and Dattatray laid down the principle that invalidation of a caste claim renders the appointment void.
  • The Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 provides a statutory framework for regulating caste certificates.
  • The power under Section 7 of the Act allows the Scrutiny Committee to verify caste certificates issued before or after the enforcement of the Act.
  • Withdrawal of benefits is a necessary consequence of invalidation of a caste claim.
  • The decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini are not correct in law and are overruled.
  • Section 11 of the Act is prospective, applying to offenses after the Act’s enforcement.
  • The Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone is not correct and is overruled.
  • The power under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to defeat legislative mandate.

The Supreme Court directed that the appointments of those who had obtained employment on the basis of a false caste certificate must be terminated. The Court also clarified that the directions in Milind were not a universal rule and were under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Flowchart of Caste Certificate Verification and Consequences

Application for Caste Certificate
↓
Issuance of Caste Certificate by Competent Authority
↓
Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee
↓

Valid Certificate: Benefits of Reservation Continue

Invalid Certificate: Cancellation and Confiscation

↓

Consequences of Invalid Certificate:

  • Debarment from Educational Institutions
  • Discharge from Employment
  • Withdrawal of Benefits

Source: FCI vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira