'Sikh Chamar' & 'Ravidaasiya Mochi' Synonymous? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In MP Navneet Kaur Rana's Caste Certificate Case

In a plea over the cancellation of Amravati MP Navneet Kaur Rana's 'Mochi' caste certificate, the Supreme Court today reserved its judgment.

The Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol was hearing Rana's challenge to a Bombay High Court order of 2021, where it was observed that she fraudulently obtained 'Mochi' caste certificate, even though records indicated that she belonged to the caste 'Sikh-Chamar'. Notably, this had led to invalidation of her election from a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes in Maharashtra.

Before the top Court, Rana's case had been that her forefathers belonged to the Sikh-Chamar caste, wherein 'Sikh' is a religious pre-fix and does not pertain to the caste. It was her contention that she belongs to the caste 'Chamar'.

For a detailed background as well as report on the previous hearing, click here. The submissions addressed before the Court today are captured below. 

Respondents' Submissions

In today's hearing, the arguments on behalf of respondents were led by Advocate-on-Record Shadan Farasat.

He started by showing how the three documents relied upon by Rana during her 'Mochi' caste claim verification, ie self school leaving certificate (SLC), her father's school leaving certificate and father's caste certificate, were knocked out by the Scrutiny Committee and the decision to that extent was never challenged by Rana.

(i) Rana's SLC: It was apprised that during enquiry, the same was found to be fabricated. "While making verification of the said document, when the Vigilance Squad visited the concerned school, it was told that the said document was issued by the school only. But the applicant gave application on the date of 23.08.2013 for secondary certificate and requested to mention the word Mochi in it", Farasat read from records. He submitted that not taking the document to be an original record, Rana's SLC was held inadmissible. Further, he alleged that Rana's husband used his political power insofar as her SLC was concerned.

(ii) Rana's father's SLC: It was claimed that this document was held inadmissible because it could not be verified by the Vigilance Squad that it was issued by the concerned school. "When the Vigilance Squad visited the school and made verification of the said document, no name of Harbhajan Singh Ram Singh Kundles was found at serial number 281 on the general register...also, the Education Officer has informed the complainant...that the said document has not been issued by the concerned school", read Farasat from the records. To support the allegation of fabrication, he pointed out that the SLC pertained to 1960, even though the concerned school started in 1964.

(iii) Rana's father's caste certificate: It was urged that Rana's father's original caste certificate (for 'Mochi') was of July, 2013, which was cancelled in 2017 by the same Committee that approved the caste certificate for Rana (that too, on the very day her father's certificate was cancelled).  Questioning how Rana could be granted a Mochi caste certificate when it was denied to her father, the counsel alleged that "collusion with the Caste Scrutiny Committee is writ large".

Reliance was placed on another contemporaneous document, that is Rana's original school admission form, to emphasize that instead of Scheduled Castes, she belonged to OBC (other backward classes) category. Farasat highlighted that in the "Caste/Sub-Caste/Religion" section of the form, which was signed by Rana's mother, only "Sikh" was mentioned. Further, in response to the question "whether a member of Scheduled Caste/Tribe and documentary evidence thereof?", the answer was "NA" (not applicable) and "BC" (backward class). "Entire case is an afterthought of making her a Scheduled Caste and then to succeed in a reserved constituency", the counsel pressed.

On a specific Court query, it was informed that though the above document (Rana's original school admission form) was placed before the Scrutiny Committee, it did not deal with the same.

It was further contended that Rana was contradicting her own application. "In the verification form itself, she says that my family migrated in 1946 from Punjab, so where is the question thereafter to submit documents of 1932 of Bombay saying that so and so was resident in Bombay?", Farasat asked.

Moving on, he drew the Court's attention to two other documents, ie Rana's mother's ration card and her own birth certificate, which were not brought forth during the verification process but relied upon for obtaining original caste certificate. He pled that these documents were interpolated and the High Court went into facts of the case noting the extent of "fraud". It was further underscored that the matter calls for a prosecution (as opposed to simple dismissal), as Rana claimed under oath that all five documents submitted for 'Mochi' caste certificate were valid, which has been subsequently found to be untrue.

Underlining that the Verification Committee equated 'Sikh-Chamar' with 'Mochi', even when the Constitution does not permit it, Farasat also said that one cannot find "a clearer case of collusion". Reading the statutory provisions, he questioned the Scrutiny Committee's decision to not prosecute Rana for obtaining caste certificate based on false documents, despite having the exclusive power to do so.

Next, on the strength of the averment that a caste mentioned in Presidential Order has to be read as it is, he came to the 'Sikh-Chamar' and 'Ravidaasiya Mochi' documents relied upon by Rana. It was stated that the same were also fabricated, but even if for argument's sake, they are believed to be genuine, a 'Mochi' caste certificate could not be given on their basis. "They had to show a Mochi document to support a Mochi certificate...they can't support a Mochi certificate even with a fully genuine Sikh-Chamar document. That's contrary to the Constitution, Courts can't interpret it", Farasat said.

He pointed to the following finding of the High Court on Sikh-Chamar documents: "...the Caste Validation Committee while approving Sikh Chamar to grant Mochi document has amended the Scheduled Caste Presidential Order...Admittedly, the caste Sikh Chamar is not included in the said Entry 11 of Schedule. Respondent No.3 did not produce any other document showing her caste as Mochi or caste of her forefather as Mochi in the State of Maharashtra on the deemed date".

"So the word Sikh Chamar or Ravidaasiya Mochi are neither synonymous nor interchangeable?" asked Justice Karol.

"Yes, absolutely", replied Farasat.

"Therefore, for the limited point, you don't raise the issue of authenticity or the genuineness of the documents be it of Sikh Chamar or Ravidaasiya Mochi", Karol J asked.

Affirming the same, Farasat said that Rana has raised the issue of respondents not objecting to these documents. However, there was no need for the same: "Why should I raise objection? it's like you're producing Y to substantiate X...if it's Y, why should I object? Y can never be X...I have objected to each and every Mochi document and each of them have been found to be fraudulent".

Justice Maheshwari then reflected, "So, in this Presidential Order in Clause 11, Punjab, State of Maharashtra...this word Sikh Chamar is not there...it cannot be replaced, this is your contention...and nor Ravidaasiya Mochi is there".

Another contention raised by Farasat was that based on documents of Punjab (say, father's SC/ST certificate), a person cannot get caste certificate under Presidential Order of Maharashtra, saying "Mochi in Punjab is a different enquiry from Mochi in Maharashtra". What they can do is approach the Maharashtra authority and furnish the Punjab caste certificate. This authority would then pass an order, saying that based on the furnished certificate, the person would be a Scheduled Caste under the Punjab Order.

"The effect of that is two-fold - I will be an SC/ST for the purposes of Punjab once the Maharashtra authority gives me and I will be SC/ST for the purposes of the Central government".

Reflecting on this submission, Justice Karol posited that there may be a situation where a person, who migrated from West Pakistan or Bangladesh around the time of partition without documents, shifts from Punjab to Bombay. He may genuinely be entitled to a particular caste certificate. If so, the Judge questioned, can the person's pedigree in Punjab not be examined at Bombay under any circumstance?

Conceding that the Rule is a bit harsh, Farasat said, "in a genuine case, there can be a problem..." but in certain Constitution Bench decisions, the Court has struck balance.

Petitioner's Counter-Submissions

Leading submissions on behalf of Rana was Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta. During the hearing, Justice Maheshwari addressed the following question to him,

"3 documents you relied upon with respect to Sikh-Mochi...all these 3 documents primarily does not sustain...whatever it is...that is the finding of the Scrutiny Committee...those findings of the Scrutiny Committee on Sikh-Mochi is substantiated that this finding is just and proper...you have asked for Mochi certificate, documents of Mochi go away...where is the question of grant of this certificate...in Maharashtra?"

The judge opined that Sikh-Chamar documents had "nothing to do", but those relating to Ravidaasiya Mochi could still be considered. 

Centering his arguments on the Court's query and countering Farasat's submissions, the Senior Counsel contended that in Rana's case, 'Mochi' caste is being claimed in Maharashtra by providing documents which are prior to the Presidential Order, 1950.

He further urged that Vigilance has confirmed the pedigree documents right from 1898 and pled that the documents produced by Rana, being pre-independence, may be given highest probative value.

Mehta also contended, "...Mentioning Hindu or Sikh doesn't make a difference...if the material before the Court ie the pedigree table etc. and the evidence which comes before the Scrutiny Committee is sufficient to come to the conclusion that I belong to a community which is described as a Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Caste Order".

Case Details: Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 2741-2743/2024