Karnataka High Court Dismisses Congress MLA G Manjunatha's Appeal In False Caste Certificate Case, Says Allegations Are 'Serious'

Dismissing an appeal by Congress MLA G Manjunatha in an alleged case of "false caste certification", the Karnataka High Court termed the allegation as "serious" and left it open for the State to consider initiating approprtiate proceedings against him.

It has been alleged that the MLA, using the disputed Scheduled Caste certificate, contested and won the elections from the Mulbagal reserved constituency back in 2012 as an independent candidate. 

The high court was adjudicating the MLA's appeal challenging a single judge's order which had upheld a 2021 report filed by the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) Kolar, before the Supreme Court iterating that the legislator belonged to OBC category. The MLA had however contended that the 'Budga Jangam' caste certificate issued to him in 2012 would prevail instead.

The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha in its order observed that there were sufficient grounds and material on record supporting the DCVC's conclusion that the appellant belongs to the Byragi community which falls under OBC category and not the Budga Jangam community which falls under SC category. 

It said:

"Before concluding, we may also add that there is a serious allegation of obtaining a false caste certificate against the appellant. There is no dispute that the appellant applied for a caste certificate in 2008, which was rejected. The appellant's appeal against the said decision was also rejected. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant has produced another caste certificate dated 03.04.2012, purportedly issued in pursuance of his application in 2012. However, the Tahsildar had issued an endorsement clearly stating that the caste certificate had been issued by misusing the computer at the Tahsildar's office and that there is no record of its issuance. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, it is open for the State to consider initiating appropriate proceedings in this regard". 

The MLA had initially applied for a Scheduled Caste Certificate in 2008, which was rejected. Subsequently, an appeal was also preferred before DCVC, which was also dismissed. In 2013, after Manjunatha contested from the reserved constituency of Mulbagal and got elected based on the 'Budga Jangam' caste certificate, the Tahsildar alleged that the caste certificate issued was not genuine and was procured by illegally misusing the office computer.

According to the Tahsildar, the computer in the taluk office was misused to make the entry pertaining to the MLA's caste. In the endorsement from 2013, the Tahsildar also communicated not to use the caste certificate illegally issued from the Taluk office. Tahsildar has also placed on record another instance of the MLA falsely securing a Scheduled Caste Certificate in 2010 from the Taluk office.

Subsequently, in an election petition, the 2012 Mulbagal elections were challenged before the High Court. The High Court allowed the plea and held that the legislator did not belong to the 'Budga Jangam' community. When the matter went up to the Supreme Court in 2020, the DCVC was asked to furnish a fresh report about Manjunatha's caste. DCVC filed a report stating that the appellant didn't belong to the Scheduled Caste.

The Supreme Court declined to examine the appellant's challenge to the report and by an order dated 19.01.2023, relegated the appellant to avail his remedies before the high court. Consequently the appellant moved a plea before the high court challenging the DCVC's report, which was rejected by the single judge. Against this the appellant moved before the division bench. 

Findings

The bench noted that DCVC has prepared the caste report of the MLA after conducting sufficient enquiries.

Moreover, Manjunatha's school records indicated that he belonged to the 'Byraga-OBC Category I' list and not the Scheduled Caste, the court observed after perusing the DCVC's report.

“The appellant's contention that the school records have no evidentiary value is unmerited. Whilst the probative value of the caste recorded prior to the issuance of the Presidential Order has a high probative value, the evidentiary value of entries recorded thereafter is lower. However, it is erroneous to suggest that the entries made in the school record have noprobative value”, the court remarked that the petitioner has not challenged his 'Byragi' status as mentioned in the school records any time before 2008.

The DCVC recorded a few more findings, which the court acknowledged, such as the legislator's immediate family historically declared themselves as 'Byragi' in property sale deeds and official documents.

“…Thus, by the very own assertions of the appellant's immediate family members, the appellant would not belong to the scheduled caste category”, the court opined.

The court also referred to the instance of DCVC visiting the native place of the MLA at Kottur in 2021 before submitting a report.

“…The report indicates that it examined several individuals…However, none of them claimed to have availed any benefits meant for the scheduled castes. They also stated that the Budga Jangam community is also known as Kondamama, Jangam…, and Byragi. They also stated that there was no documentary proof of the appellant obtaining a cast certificate. They also categorically stated that neither any person in the said village nor the neighbouring village had obtained verification of the 'Budga Jangam' caste certificate”, the bench said. 

None of the family members had ever been at the receiving end of SC benefits, nor have they sought caste verification as 'Budga Jangam', the court added, based on the DCVC report.

Additionally, the DCVC found no evidence that the MLA's parents had ever migrated to Kolar from Gulbarga, Bidar, or Raichur post 1977, the three districts where Budga Jangam was originally notified as a Scheduled Caste, the court noted. 

Confirming DCVC's findings, the court also deemed documents about the appellant's rituals and deity, marriage photographs, etc., as insufficient and even undermining the claims made by the MLA. The court also said that the Karnataka Rajya Budaga Jangam Kshemabhivruddi Sangh President's testimony about the veracity of MLA's claims regarding his caste is doubtful, given the marital ties between the legislator's brother and the daughter of the community leader.

“…The DCVC as well as the learned Single Judge rightly held that it was not open for the authorities or the Court to accept the appellant's claim of belonging to a scheduled caste category on the basis that Budga Jangam community was also known as Byragi, Jangala, Sanyasi…Admittedly, Byragi has been notified as a backward class falling in Category-I. The Byragi caste is not a scheduled caste. Thus, it is not open for the DCVC or the authority to proceed on the basis that a person belonging to the Byragi community can also be considered as a person belonging to the Budga Jangam community”, the court observed while dismissing the appellant contentions by relying on State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors (2000).

In Milind case, the Supreme Court held that only the Parliament can amend the Scheduled Tribe lists and Courts or the state government can't alter or include the List by making new additions not explicitly provided in the original list as per the Presidential Order.

The appeal was dismissed. 

Case Title: Shri G. Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 435 of 2024 (GM-CC)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order