Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification for Failure to Submit Caste Validity Certificate: Sudhir Vilas Kalel vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 90

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a member of a local governing body continue in their position if they fail to provide a Caste Validity Certificate within the mandated timeframe? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue in a recent case concerning the validity of a No Confidence Motion against a Sarpanch (Village head) in Maharashtra. The core dispute centered on whether a member, who had not submitted the required certificate on time, could be considered eligible to vote in the motion. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the election of Sudhir Vilas Kalel (Appellant No. 1) as a member of the Jambulani Gram Panchayat, a seat reserved for the Other Backward Class (OBC) category. He had obtained a Caste Certificate in 2013. On December 30, 2020, he filed his nomination papers and applied for a Caste Validity Certificate, which is mandatory under 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “Caste Certificate Act, 2000”).

Under the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, a Caste Certificate is not conclusive until it is verified and a Validity Certificate is granted by the Scrutiny Committee. Sudhir Vilas Kalel was required to submit this Validity Certificate within twelve months of being declared elected. He was elected on January 21, 2021. He failed to do so. A No Confidence Motion was moved against the Sarpanch, Sushila Sitaram Kalel (Appellant No. 2), on June 13, 2023. The validity of this motion depended on whether Sudhir Vilas Kalel was eligible to vote.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case is governed by several key legal provisions:

• 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 mandates the issuance and verification of Caste Certificates. Section 3 requires individuals from Other Backward Classes to apply for a Caste Certificate. Section 4(2) states that the Caste Certificate is subject to verification and grant of a Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 6 authorizes the government to constitute a Scrutiny Committee.
• 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: Rule 14 requires applicants to submit an application for verification of their caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee. Rule 17(2) states that the applicant is responsible for removing objections raised by the Scrutiny Committee within a specified time, and Rule 17(3) allows the rejection of incomplete applications.
• Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 10-1A requires individuals contesting elections for reserved seats to submit both a Caste Certificate and a Validity Certificate. It allows candidates to contest if they have applied for a Validity Certificate, provided they submit it within twelve months of being elected. Failing to do so results in retrospective termination of their election. Section 35 deals with the process of No Confidence Motion. It states that a No Confidence Motion has to be carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the total number of members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat.
• Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023: Sections 3 and 4 of this Act provide a temporary extension for submitting Validity Certificates for certain elections held after January 1, 2021. Section 3(1) allows candidates whose applications are pending to submit the certificate within twelve months from the commencement of the Act. Section 3(2)(b) excludes members whose applications have been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 4 provides for abatement of legal proceedings relating to disqualification of a member for not submitting the validity certificate.

These provisions are crucial in determining the eligibility of candidates and the validity of the No Confidence Motion.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The application filed by Appellant No. 1 on 30.12.2020 was not rejected but was only “filed” due to a technicality.
• The filing of a fresh application on 14.06.2023 was merely a re-filing after curing the defects in the original application.
• Appellant No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of the validation provision under Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023.
• Under Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, a No Confidence Motion has to be carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of total number of Members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote. Since the requisite majority of nine votes was not obtained, the motion was invalid.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Appellant No. 1 is not entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, as his application was not pending on 10.07.2023 (the date of commencement of the Act).
• Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 applies only to those whose applications are pending before the Scrutiny Committee on the date of commencement of the Act.
• The order of 01-03/04/2021, where the application was “filed,” amounts to a rejection.
• Appellant No. 1 failed to furnish the declaration as required, and is deemed automatically disqualified with retrospective effect.
• The No Confidence Motion was carried with eight Members out of ten, who were entitled to sit and vote.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Appellant No. 1 is entitled to the protection of Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023?
2. Whether the proceedings of 19.06.2023 holding the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2 as not carried for want of the requisite votes is tenable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. [2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431]*: The Court upheld the principle that the time limit for producing the Validity Certificate is mandatory.
• Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others. [(2019) 3 SCC 220]*: The Court affirmed the mandatory nature of the time limit for submitting the Validity Certificate.
• Sujit Vasant Patil (supra)*: The Court reiterated the principle that a candidate who contests an election without a Validity Certificate takes a “risk.”
• Mandakani Kachru Kokane alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 221]*: The Court emphasized the obligation of candidates to communicate their election results to the Scrutiny Committee within two weeks for expeditious disposal of their application.
• Section 3, 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*: The Court noted the requirement for individuals from Other Backward Classes to apply for a Caste Certificate.
• Section 4(2), 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*: The Court highlighted that the Caste Certificate is subject to verification and grant of a Validity Certificate.
• Section 6, 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*: The Court acknowledged the authority of the government to constitute Scrutiny Committees.
• Rule 14, 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*: The Court considered the requirement for applicants to submit an application for verification of their caste claim.
• Rule 17(2), 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*: The Court noted the applicant’s responsibility to remove objections raised by the Scrutiny Committee.
• Rule 17(3), 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*: The Court emphasized that incomplete applications may be rejected.
• Section 10-1A, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959*: The Court highlighted the requirement of submitting both Caste and Validity Certificates and the consequences for non-compliance.
• Section 35, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959*: The Court referred to the process of No Confidence Motion.
• Section 3, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023*: The Court interpreted the extension of time for submitting Validity Certificates and the conditions for its applicability.
• Section 4, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023*: The Court considered the abatement of legal proceedings relating to disqualification of a member for not submitting the validity certificate.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Mandatory Nature of Time Limits: The Court emphasized that the time limits for submitting the Validity Certificate, as stipulated in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, are mandatory. This was based on the earlier judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
• Applicant’s Responsibility: The Court highlighted that applicants are personally responsible for ensuring that their applications are complete and that they follow up with the Scrutiny Committee. The Court noted that the applicant had failed to submit the declaration of results within the stipulated time.
• Interpretation of “Rejection”: The Court interpreted the “filing” of the application by the Scrutiny Committee as a rejection under Section 3(2)(b) of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, because the applicant failed to comply with the requirements.
• Purpose of the Temporary Extension Act: The Court clarified that the Temporary Extension Act was intended to protect those whose applications were genuinely pending and not those who had failed to comply with the rules.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal requirements and the applicant’s failure to comply with those requirements.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they were not consistent with the statutory provisions and the intent of the legislature. The Court emphasized that the Temporary Extension Act was not meant to condone the negligence of the applicants.

The Court concluded that Appellant No. 1 was automatically disqualified for failing to submit the Validity Certificate within the stipulated time. The Court also concluded that the No Confidence Motion was validly carried.

“The rejection in Section 3(2)(b) will also include those cases where applications came to be rejected on account of defaults committed at the end of the applicants themselves.”

“An applicant who has certain things under his control ought to have done everything that is under his control for the purpose of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023.”

“Accepting the contention of the Appellant No.1 would also amount to putting a premium on the concession given to a party who was taking the ‘risk’ of contesting the election by not having a Validity Certificate on the date of the nomination.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous.

Key Takeaways:

• Strict Compliance: The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory deadlines for submitting Caste Validity Certificates.
• Personal Responsibility: Candidates are responsible for ensuring their applications are complete and for following up with the Scrutiny Committee.
• Limited Scope of Temporary Extension Act: The Temporary Extension Act, 2023, is not a blanket waiver for all applicants. It only applies to those whose applications are genuinely pending.
• Automatic Disqualification: Failure to submit the Validity Certificate within the stipulated time results in automatic disqualification with retrospective effect.
• No Premium on Non-Compliance: The Court will not reward those who fail to comply with the rules by interpreting the law in a manner that benefits them.

This judgment clarifies the legal position on the submission of Caste Validity Certificates and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. It also serves as a reminder to candidates contesting elections for reserved seats to ensure they comply with all the requirements, including submitting the required documents within the stipulated time.