Supreme Court Directs Fresh Verification of Caste Certificates Issued for Local Body Elections

Date of the Judgment: 01 October 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can the state government bypass the Supreme Court’s directives on the constitution of scrutiny committees and the mandatory vigilance cell reports for caste certificate verification? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a batch of appeals concerning the issuance of caste certificates for local body elections in Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around a state government notification that altered the composition of the Scrutiny Committees and the mandatory vigilance cell inquiry, deviating from previous Supreme Court guidelines. This judgment clarifies the interplay between judicial directions and legislative actions in the context of caste certificate verifications. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to a notification issued by the Social Justice, Special Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra on 30.07.2011. This notification constituted district-level committees for verifying caste certificates of candidates contesting local body elections. The notification designated the District Collector or Additional District Collector (IAS) as the Chairperson of the Scrutiny Committee, deviating from the earlier practice of having an Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as the Chairperson as per the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. [(1997) 5 SCC 437].

This change was implemented to handle a large number of applications for caste certificates due to the upcoming local self-government elections in 2011. The High Court was troubled by the manner in which the certificates were issued, noting that many were issued without proper verification and within a very short time. The High Court quashed the notification and directed that the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 241] be followed. The State of Maharashtra appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The main parties involved were the District Collector Satara & Anr. (Appellants) and Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (Respondent). The relief sought was the quashing of the High Court’s judgment that had invalidated the Government Resolution dated 30.07.2011.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:
✓ Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of race and caste.
✓ Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, with enabling provisions for reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
✓ Article 17 of the Constitution of India: Abolishes untouchability.
✓ Section 2(k) of 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: Defines “Scrutiny Committee” as the committee constituted for verification of the Caste Certificate.

✓ Section 6 of 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: Provides for the constitution of Scrutiny Committees by the Government for verification of Caste Certificates.

✓ Section 6(1) of 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: Empowers the Government to constitute Scrutiny Committees.

✓ Section 18(1) of 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: Empowers making of Rules.

The Act of 2000 was enacted to regulate the issuance and verification of caste certificates for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category. The Act aims to ensure that only genuine candidates benefit from the reservation policies.

The constitutional framework ensures that the State is enjoined to provide facilities and opportunities to the SCs and STs for education and employment, so as to result in economic improvement, resulting in excellence, equality of status and the right to live in dignity.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Maharashtra):

• The State Government argued that the notification dated 30.7.2011 was issued under the powers conferred by Section 6(1) of the Act of 2000.
• The change in the composition of the Scrutiny Committee, with the District Collector as the Chairperson, was necessary to handle the large number of applications for caste certificates due to the upcoming local self-government elections.
• The State contended that the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241] were meant to fill a vacuum and did not preclude the legislature from enacting its own laws.
• The State argued that the Rules of 2012, which were subsequently notified, addressed the issue of verification of caste certificates.
• The State expressed concerns about the practical implications of withdrawing all the certificates issued under the 2011 notification.

Arguments by the Respondents (Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid and others):

• The Respondents contended that the Scrutiny Committees were not constituted in accordance with the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and Kumari Madhuri Patil-II [(1997) 5 SCC 437].
• The Respondents argued that the mandatory requirement of a vigilance cell report was not followed in the issuance of caste certificates under the 2011 notification.
• The Respondents challenged the validity of the certificates issued without proper verification, alleging that they were obtained by fraud.
• Some respondents argued that their caste certificates were invalidated by improperly constituted scrutiny committees.
• The Respondents sought the quashing of the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2011.

Sub-Submissions by Parties:

Innovativeness of the Argument:
The State’s argument that the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241] were meant to fill a vacuum and did not preclude the legislature from enacting its own laws was a key point of contention. The respondents highlighted the lack of adherence to mandatory procedures and the potential for fraud, which was a significant factor in the High Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for adjudication:

✓ Whether the State Government’s notification dated 30.7.2011, altering the composition of the Scrutiny Committee, was valid in light of the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and Kumari Madhuri Patil-II [(1997) 5 SCC 437].

✓ Whether the mandatory requirement of a vigilance cell report, as per the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241], could be dispensed with in the issuance of caste certificates under the 2011 notification.

✓ Whether the certificates issued under the 2011 notification should be quashed due to the lack of proper verification and the alleged fraud.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 241]*: The Court acknowledged the directions issued in this case, emphasizing that they were meant to fill a vacuum in the absence of legislation. The court stated that these directions were upheld in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. [(2012) 1 SCC 333].

✓ Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. [(1997) 5 SCC 437]*: The Court noted the modification made in this case due to administrative exigencies.

✓ Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. [(2012) 1 SCC 333]*: The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision upholding the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil, and noted that these directions would hold field so long as the State Governments did not come up with appropriate legislations.

✓ Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 161]*: The Court cited this case to explain the concept of judicial activism and judicial legislation in the absence of legislation.

✓ Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 226]*: The Court cited this case to highlight the power conferred by Article 32, read with Article 142 of the Constitution to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution.

✓ Vishaka v State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241]*: The Court cited this case as a classic example of judicial legislation to fill a vacuum.

✓ The Director of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri & Anr. [(1995) 4 SCC 32]*: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need for the Government of India to examine the matter in detail and bring about a uniform legislation.

✓ Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [AIR 1986 SC 515]*: The Court cited this case to highlight the principles for examining subordinate legislation/statutory notifications.

✓ Khambhalia Municipality v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1967 SC 1048]*: The Court cited this case to highlight that once the legislature lays down a legislative policy, and confers discretion upon the administrative agency for the execution of such policy, it is up to the agency to work out the details within the framework of the policy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

Sentiment Analysis:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the casual manner in which the caste certificates were issued. The Court also balanced the need for proper verification with the practical difficulties in withdrawing all certificates immediately.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that judicial directions are meant to fill a vacuum until the legislature enacts its own laws. The Court also emphasized the importance of proper verification of caste certificates to ensure that only genuine candidates benefit from reservation policies. The Court balanced the need for proper verification with the practical difficulties in withdrawing all certificates immediately.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• The State Government has the power to constitute Scrutiny Committees under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2000, and judicial directions do not preclude the legislature from enacting its own laws.
• Proper verification of caste certificates is essential, and the assistance of the Vigilance Cell should be taken at the slightest doubt.
• Certificates issued under the notification dated 30.7.2011, without proper verification, will be subject to a fresh verification exercise under the Rules of 2012.
• Existing certificates issued for the interregnum period will hold good until the fresh verification exercise is completed.
• Those whose caste certificates were rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, without any Vigilance Inquiry, may be given the right to appeal against such rejection, as per Rule 7 of the 2012 Rules.

Potential Future Impact:
This judgment clarifies the interplay between judicial directions and legislative actions in the context of caste certificate verifications. It reinforces the importance of proper verification and ensures that only genuine candidates benefit from reservation policies. The judgment also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

✓ A fresh verification exercise must be undertaken within a period of six months from the date of the judgment (i.e., on or before 31.03.2020).

✓ The existing certificates issued for the interregnum period would hold good till this exercise is completed.

✓ The exercise would have to be undertaken in respect of all the certificates, except those cases where the validity certificate was issued after verification by the Vigilance Cell.

✓ Wherever there is an adverse report of the Vigilance Cell and yet a caste validity certificate has been issued, the exercise has to be carried out afresh.

✓ Those, whose caste certificates were rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, without any Vigilance Inquiry, may be given the right to appeal against such rejection, as per Rule 7 of the 2012 Rules.

✓ The Caste Scrutiny Committee is to carry out the aforesaid exercise, while notifying the parties concerned, through appropriate public notices in this behalf.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that while judicial directions are meant to fill a vacuum, they do not preclude the legislature from enacting its own laws. The State Government has the power to constitute Scrutiny Committees under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2000, but proper verification of caste certificates is essential. The judgment also emphasizes that the assistance of the Vigilance Cell should be taken at the slightest doubt.

Changes in Previous Legal Framework:
This judgment clarifies the interplay between judicial directions and legislative actions in the context of caste certificate verifications. It does not overturn any previous legal framework but rather interprets and applies existing laws and precedents. The judgment reinforces the importance of proper verification of caste certificates and the need to balance the legislative power of the state with the need to ensure that only genuine candidates benefit from reservation policies. The Court has clarified that the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil were meant to fill a vacuum and did not preclude the legislature from enacting its own laws. The Court also clarified that the vigilance cell report is not mandatory under the Rules of 2012, but the Scrutiny Committee should take assistance of the Vigilance Cell at the slightest doubt.

Precedential Value:
This judgment has significant precedential value as it clarifies the scope and limitations of judicial directions in the context of legislative enactments. It also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues related to caste certificate verification and the powers of state governments to regulate such processes. The judgment reinforces the need for a robust verification process to prevent fraud and ensure that reservation policies are implemented effectively. The judgment also clarifies the role of the Vigilance Cell in the verification process.