Case Title: Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Case no.: Civil Appeal NO(S). 27412743 OF 2024
Order on: 4th April 2024.
Quorum: J.K. Maheshwari J., Sanjay Karol.
Facts of the Case:
The central issue in this case concerns the validation of the caste claim made by the appellant, who contested the 2019 Parliamentary election as an independent candidate in Maharashtra’s Amravati constituency, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The appellant emerged as the winning candidate, defeating other contestants, including Anandra Vithoba Adsul, who is a respondent in this case.
The controversy arose when the validity of the appellant’s caste claim was challenged by other candidates, primarily alleging that she obtained a ‘Mochi Scheduled Caste’ certificate through the submission of forged documents. The dispute traces back to 2013 when complaints were lodged against the appellant before the Scrutiny Committee, seeking the cancellation of the caste validity certificate issued to her by the Deputy Collector in 2013.
The matter underwent proceedings from 2013 to 2017. Eventually, the High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 2014 filed by Raju Mankar, set aside the caste validity certificate issued to the appellant and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee with directions to afford all parties a hearing and decide in accordance with the law.
Following the remand by the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee reconsidered the matter. After a thorough examination and considering all documents, the Committee accepted the appellant’s caste claim in an order dated 03.11.2017. The decision was primarily based on two key documents: a bona fide certificate issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science, and Commerce in 2014, mentioning the appellant’s grandfather’s caste as ‘Sikh Chamar’, and an Indenture of Tenancy from 1932, supporting the appellant’s claim of her forefathers migrating from Punjab to Maharashtra in 1932, along with proof of residence.
The aggrieved parties filed respective writ petitions, leading to the present appeals.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta argued that the High Court’s intervention in overturning the Scrutiny Committee’s findings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was unjustified. He asserted that the Committee, acting as a quasi-judicial authority 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, conducted a thorough fact-finding process.
He emphasized that the High Court’s role in such cases is to review whether the lower courts or forums acted within their jurisdiction, and not to conduct a roving inquiry. As per precedents like ‘Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others., AIR 1958 SC 398’, ‘Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, (2019) 20 SCC 143’, and ‘Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union and Another, 2000 (4) SCC 245’, the High Court should treat such petitions akin to statutory appeals.
Regarding the admissibility of documents submitted by the appellant, Mr. Mehta argued that they should have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, as they carried a statutory presumption under the Indian Evidence Act. He cited cases like ‘Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113’ and ‘Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 909’ to support his argument. Unless adverse findings were returned by the Vigilance Cell, the Committee should not have deemed these documents inadmissible, particularly as they pertained to the appellant’s forefathers from the pre-independence era.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal contested the case by focusing on the interpretation of the Scheduled Castes Order, 1950, issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. He argued that it is constitutionally untenable to grant a caste certificate to the appellant because the Presidential Order does not specifically mention the caste ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ or ‘Sikh Chamar’ for Maharashtra State. Mr. Sibal emphasized that the Presidential Order must be strictly construed, and no authority has the power to expand its scope. He cited legal precedents, including ‘Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 2 SCC 130’, to support his argument that the Presidential Order is self-explanatory and cannot be interpreted beyond its explicit terms.
Assisting counsel Mr. Shadan Farasat supported the High Court’s findings, alleging that the appellant obtained her caste claim certificate through fraudulent means, submitting multiple forged documents. He argued that even if the documents were genuine, they were self-contradictory and did not justify granting the appellant a caste certificate. Mr. Farasat highlighted discrepancies in the appellant’s submissions, particularly regarding her claimed caste affiliation and the documents presented. He asserted that the Scrutiny Committee’s decision to validate the appellant’s caste claim was impermissible under the law, as neither ‘Sikh Chamar’ nor ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ are recognized as Scheduled Castes in the original Presidential Order for Maharashtra State.
To support his argument, Mr. Farasat pointed to three specific documents submitted by the appellant, alleging that they were forged and fabricated. These documents included her father’s school leaving certificate, her father’s caste certificate (which was cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee), and her own school leaving certificate. He claimed that the changes made to these documents were influenced by political pressure exerted by the appellant’s husband, who is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly.
Issues:
Validity of Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles “Mochi” caste certificate, alleging that it had been obtained using fabrication of documents.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
The appeals are from a common judgment and final order dated 08.06.2021 issued by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in three Writ Petitions. Two of these petitions, Writ Petition No. 3370 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2019, were filed by Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar (Respondents) respectively, seeking to quash the order dated 03.11.2017 of the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban, which validated the caste claim of the appellant as ‘Mochi – Scheduled Caste’ in Maharashtra.
Conversely, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 9426 of 2020, seeking to set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s findings, particularly regarding the non-consideration of her oldest documents that supported her caste claim. The Division Bench, in its judgment, allowed the petitions of Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar, while dismissing the petition of the appellant. The High Court invalidated the Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 03.11.2017 on the grounds of fraudulent acquisition and cancelled the appellant’s caste certificate. Additionally, the Division Bench imposed a cost of Rs. 2,00,000 on the appellant and ordered her to surrender her caste certificate. Consequently, the present appeals were filed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A
