Supreme Court clarifies the verification of caste certificates for migrants in Maharashtra: Aruna vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) INSC 442 (27 July 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 July 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 442

Judges: Navin Sinha, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a person who migrated from another state be disqualified from holding an elected post in Maharashtra if their caste certificate, issued in Maharashtra, is not verified by the Caste Verification Committee due to a misinterpretation of rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the disqualification of a Municipal Council President. The core issue was whether the Caste Verification Committee was correct in refusing to verify the caste certificate of the appellant, who had migrated from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra, and whether the High Court was correct in upholding that decision. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Aruna, was elected as the President of the Municipal Council, Kundalwadi. She had obtained a caste certificate in Maharashtra, identifying her as belonging to the “Munnur Kapu” Other Backward Class (OBC). This certificate was crucial because the post was reserved for OBC candidates. However, her election was challenged by respondent No. 4, who raised questions about the validity of her caste certificate.

Aruna’s father was originally from Nanded, Maharashtra, but had migrated to Hyderabad around 1960. Aruna was born in Hyderabad and later moved to Maharashtra after her marriage on May 24, 1987. She possessed a caste certificate from Hyderabad recognizing her as “Munnur Kapu,” an OBC category. While “Munnur Kapu” was not recognized as an OBC in Maharashtra at the time of her migration, it was later recognized on December 7, 1994.

To contest the election, Aruna obtained a fresh caste certificate in Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. This certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biloli, Maharashtra.

The Appellate Court upheld the validity of her caste certificate but directed that it be verified by the District Caste Verification Committee. The Committee, however, declined to verify the certificate, stating that it was issued to a migrant from another state and thus fell under the proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules, which prohibits the verification of caste certificates issued by authorities of other states. Consequently, Aruna was retroactively disqualified from her post for failing to submit a verified caste certificate within the stipulated time under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Returning Officer accepted the appellant’s nomination for the post of President. However, this acceptance was challenged in Election Appeal No. 02 of 2016 by respondent No. 4, who argued that her caste certificate dated 22.11.2016 was invalid. The Appellate Court upheld the validity of the caste certificate but referred it to the District Caste Verification Committee for verification. The Committee declined to verify the caste certificate, stating that it was issued to a migrant from another state. The appellant then filed a writ petition and a review petition before the High Court, both of which were dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.

Rule 6 of the Rules deals with the issuance of caste certificates to migrated persons. Rule 6(1)(a) states that the Competent Authority may issue a caste certificate in Form 10 to an applicant who has migrated to Maharashtra from another state, provided they produce a caste certificate issued to their father, grandfather, or relative by the concerned authority of that state.

Rule 6(1)(c) states that a caste certificate holder who has migrated to Maharashtra for purposes of education or employment may be deemed to belong to the same category as in their state of origin, but shall not derive benefits from the State of Maharashtra. The explanation to Rule 6(1) defines “migrant from other State” as a person who has migrated to Maharashtra on or after the deemed date, which for the appellant is 13.10.1967.

Rule 14 of the Rules deals with the verification of caste certificates. It states that any person seeking benefits provided to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, or Special Backward Categories must submit an application for verification. The proviso to Rule 14 states that caste certificates issued to migrants from other states or by authorities of other states shall not be verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, as amended by the Maharashtra Act No. LXV of 2018, mandates that elected candidates must submit their caste certificates after verification by the Verification Committee within one year. Failure to do so results in retrospective disqualification.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the District Caste Verification Committee erred in applying the proviso to Rule 14, as her caste certificate was not issued by an authority from another state but by the competent authority in Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a).
• The appellant contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that her certificate was issued under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10, the validity of which was upheld by both the Appellate Court and the Committee.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court erroneously opined that she could not have contested the elections based on a certificate issued at Hyderabad without a fresh caste certificate from Maharashtra, despite “Munnur Kapu” being declared an OBC in Maharashtra on 07.12.1994.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Appellate Court had left the verification of the caste certificate to the Committee, which did not verify it as it was based on a certificate from Hyderabad.
• The respondents contended that the appellant should have applied for a fresh certificate under the Rules and that her retrospective disqualification was justified as she failed to submit her verified caste certificate within the stipulated time.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the District Caste Verification Committee was justified in refusing to verify the appellant’s caste certificate under the proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Rule 6(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 to establish that the appellant’s caste certificate was validly issued by a competent authority in Maharashtra.
• The Court distinguished Rule 6(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, clarifying that it was not applicable to the appellant’s case as she was not seeking benefits for education or employment.
• The Court analyzed Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 and its proviso, clarifying that the proviso applies only to certificates issued by authorities of other states, not to certificates issued under Rule 6(1)(a) in Maharashtra.
• The Court referred to Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to emphasize the mandatory nature of disqualification for failing to submit a verified caste certificate within the stipulated time.
• The Court cited Benedict Denis Kinny and Ors v. Tulip Brian Miranda and Ors, AIR 2020 SC 3050 to support the mandatory nature of disqualification under Section 9A of the Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Misinterpretation of Rules: The Court found that both the District Caste Verification Committee and the High Court had misinterpreted the applicable rules, particularly the proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.
• Validity of Caste Certificate: The Court emphasized that the appellant’s caste certificate was issued by a competent authority in Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) and its validity was not in question.
• Distinction Between Migration Types: The Court highlighted the distinction between migration for education or employment (Rule 6(1)(c)) and obtaining a caste certificate under Rule 6(1)(a), noting that the appellant’s case fell under the latter category.
• Procedural Error: The Court noted that the Committee’s refusal to verify the certificate was based on a misconception of facts and that the High Court further compounded this error by misapplying the rules.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the rules and the factual circumstances of the case. The court found that the lower authorities had erred in their application of the law.

Key Takeaways

• The proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, applies only to caste certificates issued by authorities of other states, and not to certificates issued by competent authorities in Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a).
• When a person migrates from another state to Maharashtra and obtains a caste certificate under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10, the Caste Verification Committee cannot refuse to verify it based on the proviso to Rule 14.
• The High Court should not examine the case under Rule 6(1)(c) when the caste certificate is issued under Rule 6(1)(a). Rule 6(1)(c) applies to those who migrated for education or employment and are seeking benefits from their state of origin.
• Elected officials are required to submit their caste certificates after verification within one year, and failure to do so results in retrospective disqualification under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

This judgment clarifies the correct procedure for verifying caste certificates of migrants in Maharashtra, ensuring that those who obtain valid certificates within the state are not unfairly disqualified due to misinterpretations of the rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals to the extent that the appellant’s caste status as “Munnur Kapu” in the State of Maharashtra is recognized from 22.11.2016. The Court did not reinstate the appellant to her post, considering that her elected tenure was ending in December 2021 and that respondent No. 4 had already assumed the position of President.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, does not apply to caste certificates issued by competent authorities within the State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a). This judgment clarifies the correct interpretation of the rules and prevents the misapplication of the proviso, ensuring that validly issued caste certificates are not rejected due to a misinterpretation of the law. This clarifies the position of law that a caste certificate issued under Rule 6(1)(a) is valid and the verification committee cannot refuse to verify the same.

Conclusion

In the case of Aruna vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, the Supreme Court clarified the correct interpretation of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Rules, specifically regarding the verification of caste certificates for migrants. The Court held that the District Caste Verification Committee and the High Court had erred in refusing to verify the appellant’s caste certificate, which was validly issued in Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a). The Court emphasized that the proviso to Rule 14 applies only to certificates issued by authorities of other states, and not to those issued within Maharashtra. While the Court did not reinstate the appellant to her post, it recognized her caste status as “Munnur Kapu” in Maharashtra from 22.11.2016, thus providing prospective relief. This judgment ensures that individuals with valid caste certificates issued in Maharashtra are not unfairly disqualified due to misinterpretations of the rules.