SC Directs Maharashtra Govt To Re-Verify Caste Certificates Granted From July 30,2011 To Aug 31, 2012 [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the State of Maharashtra to re-verify the community certificates, granted to persons claiming to belong to Scheduled Tribes, between the period 30.7.2011 and 31.8.2012."The exercise carried out in the interregnum period, between 30.7.2011 (when the Notification was issued) and 31.8.2012 (when the Rules of 2012 were notified) leaves us, as the High Court, with grave doubt, and we are of the view that no proper exercise could have been carried out, or was carried out given the time frame within which the caste certificates were issued. The objective was clear, i.e., to somehow facilitate as many people as possible, as soon as possible, to contest the elections", observed the bench of Justice S K Kaul and K M Joseph.The decision was passed in an appeal filed by Dist. Collector Satara, impugning the order of the Bombay High Court, which had turned down the veracity of such certificates.The certificates during the aforementioned period were granted by the State, in accordance with The Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, framed under 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,.The Respondent, Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid, had impugned the grant of these certificates, claiming that the procedure adopted for grant of such certificates was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors, (1994) 6 SCC 241, as upheld in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 333. In the aforesaid ruling, the Supreme Court had issued directions to streamline the procedure for issuance of the social status certificates and had suggested the constitution of a Vigilance Committee and a Scrutiny Committee, to oversee the process. The Vigilance Committee was responsible to ascertain the truthfulness of the caste claim by conducting an investigation into the antecedents of the claimant, while the Scrutiny Committee was empowered to grant caste status certificate based on such report. The Respondent had challenged before the High Court the caste certificates granted by the State of Maharashtra under the said Rules of 2003 from 30.7.2011, until the enactment of 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 Rules, 2012 on 31.8.2012. He submitted that the speed with which the certificates were issued during the aforesaid period, to meet the deluge of applications for the issuance of caste certificates sought for contesting elections of the local Self-Government, it was not possible to accept that there could have been any proper verification. It was rather pointed out that the certificates were issued without vigilance reports and within a very short period of time. He further challenged the composition of the Scrutiny Committees under the Rules of 2003 and contested the rule which prescribed that the assistance of the Vigilance Committee was not required in every case, but only if the Scrutiny Committee was not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant. It was submitted that both these rules were contrary to the guidelines envisaged by the Apex Court in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case. It was contended that the directions issued by the Apex Court were mandatory and the legislature could not have diluted the law laid down by the Apex Court. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors., which opined that the directions issued in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil were "intrinsic" for the actual realization of the fundamental rights of the Backward Classes of citizens. It was also opined therein that enquiry by the Vigilance Cell was to be considered to be a core requirement for ascertainment of the veracity of the caste certificate. Accordingly, the high court was pleased to quash the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2011, with a direction that both, the matters of constitution of the Committee and the operation of the Vigilance Cell (being mandatory), the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil case had to be given full effect to. Findings The Supreme Court bifurcated his findings into two. He firstly addressed the issue of composition of Scrutiny Committee. Therein, he clarified that the purpose of any judicial legislation was to fill a vacuum and it did not preclude legislators from enacting a law. He opined that the directions issued by a court hold field so long as the State Governments do not come up with appropriate legislations to substitute the norms. Reliance was placed on Vineet Narain...

SC Directs Maharashtra Govt To Re-Verify Caste Certificates Granted From July 30,2011 To Aug 31, 2012 [Read Judgment]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

SC Directs Maharashtra Govt To Re-Verify Caste Certificates Granted From July 30,2011 To Aug 31, 2012 [Read Judgment]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers