Election Tribunal Can't Examine Validity Of Caste Certificate In Election Petition: Allahabad High Court
There is a self contained mechanism for issuance and challenge of caste certificates, Court said.
The Allahabad High Court has held that an Election Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine the validity of a caste certificate or to declare it forged, in an election petition. It held that a caste certificate duly issued by the competent authority can be validated or invalidated only by the Scrutiny Committees constituted by the State Government, and not by the Election Tribunal.The...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an Election Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine the validity of a caste certificate or to declare it forged, in an election petition.
It held that a caste certificate duly issued by the competent authority can be validated or invalidated only by the Scrutiny Committees constituted by the State Government, and not by the Election Tribunal.
The Court held that the issuance of a caste certificate, and any challenge to it, is governed by a self-contained mechanism with a hierarchy of forums: the District Level Committee, the Divisional (Regional) Level Committee and the State Level Committee, whose decision is final.
A duly issued certificate can be questioned only before these Committees under the statute concerned, and beyond that only before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once the State Level Committee has taken a final decision, held the Court.
Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed,
“..now it is crystal clear that Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority neither can be challenged nor it can be scrutinized by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition. In present matter too, there are three Committees i.e. District, Regional and State Level Committee constituted by State Government by different Government Orders for scrutiny of caste certificate, which are only having authority to validate or invalidate caste certificate. Further, Election Tribunal is having no authority to deal with such matters.”
Petitioner, Radha Charan, alleged that Vinay Prakash Gond (MLA from Ram Kola assembly of Kushinagar district) belonged to the Other Backward Class and had fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate dated 30.08.2012, on the strength of which he filed his nomination. Petitioner's complaint to the Returning Officer on 14.02.2022 seeking cancellation of the nomination was rejected, and Gond was declared elected after the poll held on 03.03.2022. The caste certificate was under challenge before the District Level Committee, which had not decided the matter.
The returned candidate denied the allegation, stating that he belonged to the Gond caste, which a Government Order dated 03.12.1987 placed in the list of Scheduled Castes. He submitted that his certificate had been scrutinised by the District Level Committee and found genuine, and had never been cancelled.
Petitioner argued that the Election Tribunal was empowered under Section 36(2)(a) read with Sections 100(1)(a), 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(2)(d) of the Representation of the People Act to examine the genuineness of every document filed with the nomination papers, including a caste certificate whose genuineness was still pending before the District Level Committee.
The returned candidate argued that a self-contained mechanism of Committees existed to verify caste certificates, and the Election Tribunal had no authority to test a certificate duly issued by the competent authority.
The Court held,
“There is no dispute on the point that there is a self contained mechanism for issuance of caste certificate and further to challenge the same in case of acceptance or rejection, there is forum starting from District Level Committee to Divisional Level Committee and State Level Committee in order of hierarchy.”
The Court held that the certificate in question had been duly issued by the competent authority, leaving no occasion for the Returning Officer to question it unless it was cancelled or annulled by the authority competent to do so.
In Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, and Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors, the Supreme Court held that only the committee constituted by the State Government has the authority to issue or cancel a caste certificate, its order being final and conclusive subject only to Article 226 of the Constitution.
In A. Raja v. D. Kumar, the Supreme Court had held that “…A duly issued Caste/Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition…”
Holding that the Election Tribunal had no authority to scrutinise a caste certificate issued by the competent authority, the Court dismissed the election petition.
Case Title: Radha Charan v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person, Ram Kumar Gautam, Radha Charan
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashutosh Mishra, Dinesh Yadav, K.R. Singh, Mohd Rehan Ansari, P.K. Kashyap, Pradeep Kumar