Election Candidates Should Disclose Challenge To Their Caste, Education Certificates: Karnataka High Court Suggests
The Karnataka High Court has said that candidates contesting elections must declare if any challenge is made to their caste, education or other certificates, which can be considered by election authorities and can come to the public's knowledge as well as other candidates who may object to it if they want. Issuing certain general directions Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order said:"In...
The Karnataka High Court has said that candidates contesting elections must declare if any challenge is made to their caste, education or other certificates, which can be considered by election authorities and can come to the public's knowledge as well as other candidates who may object to it if they want.
Issuing certain general directions Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order said:
"In this regard, I am of the considered opinion that the candidate while making a declaration would also have to make a declaration as regards any challenge made to any certificate of his, be it caste, education or the like. So the same could be considered by the election authorities, as also come to the knowledge of the general populace and other candidates to take any objection if they desire to do so. Thus, I am of the opinion that the Law Commission would have to look into this aspect insofar as elections which are conducted under the provisions of the Right to Representation Act 1951".
It further said that it would be for the State to prepare "appropriate guidelines" indicating that the contestants will have to furnish details of "all the litigations pending and decided", that the candidate is/was involved in both civil and criminal matters before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authorities so that the information is available to all–including the voting populace and rival candidates.
"Transparency would require all material details as regards the election to be placed for consideration before all the concerned,” the court added.
The bench made the suggestion while dismissing a petition filed by Member of Legislative Assembly Prabhu Chavan, who had challenged the notice issued to him by the Commissioner and Appellate Authority, Social Welfare Department directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) on a plea filed by rival contestant Narasinga, questioning the validity of Chavan's caste certificate.
Background
The petitioner–MLA from 'Aurad' Constituency in Bidar District–claiming to belong to the “Lambani” caste which is a 'Schedule Caste' has been elected in the year 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2023. When the petitioner got elected for second time in the year 2013, the Additional Director General of Police (Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement DCRE)-respondent No.4 on the complaint of one Sri.Shankarrao Doddi had directed an enquiry by the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) with regard to the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.
The DCVC after due verification and enquiry passed an order on 20.11.2017 holding that the petitioner is a resident of State of Karnataka and that he belongs to the 'Lambani' caste. Doddi had questioned the order in a writ petition which came to be dismissed then he filed an appeal before Respondent No.2 (Commissioner And Appellate Authority Social Welfare Department), but had withdrawn the same on 07.05.2018.
Later, Ravindraswamy and one Vijaykumar raised similar challenges. A Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 01.02.2022 allowed the writ petition filed by Vijaykumar and directed the respondent Authorities to conduct fresh enquiry, with regard to the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner in appeal which came to be allowed.
Subsequently the respondent no 9 (Narasingha), in 2017 raised an appeal before the authority which issued a notice of enquiry to the petitioner. Following which he approached the high court.
Submissions
The petitioner's main contention was that the notice issued by Respondent No.2 is wholly without jurisdiction and as such, this Court can exercise jurisdiction in the present matter to quash the same.
Further, he faced enquiry and/or proceedings on three earlier occasions, and having succeeded in all of them, Respondent No.9 could not have filed another appeal before Respondent No.2, on which basis Respondent No.2 has issued the present impugned notice. Earlier an appeal filed by one Shankarrao Doddi challenging the validity of the petitioner's caste certificate under Section 4D came to be withdrawn.
It was contended that an order passed by the Verification Committee under Section 4C has to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The order having been passed way back on 20.11.2017, no proceedings could have been initiated by Respondent No.9, termed as an appeal challenging the order dated 20.11.2017.
Finally it was said that Narasinga can neither be considered to be an aggrieved party, nor can he maintain an appeal over an order as regards which he was not a party.
Narasinga opposed the plea submitting that petitioner originally came from Maharashtra State, his grandfather namely Bhimla Chawan and his grandmother namely Tokubai were residents of Tondchir Village, Udgir Taluk, Latur Distrct in Maharashtra State. They were belonging to Lambani (Banjara) Community, which is a de-notified Nomadic Tribe in Maharashtra State. The 'Lambani Caste' is not a Schedule Caste in Maharashtra State, and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits that other Schedule Castes would be entitled to. The question of the petitioner claiming to be a person belonging to a Schedule Caste or Tribe would not arise.
Further it was said “The petitioner has obtained a fraudulent Caste Certificate on the basis of the forged and created documents, and thereby contested and won the elections as an 'MLA' in a reserved Constituency, thereby depriving a deserving person from contesting the said elections and/or winning the same.”
Finally it was contended that Shankarrao Doddi (earlier petitioner) had withdrawn the appeal. The present petitioner who is an aggrieved party cannot be deprived of his remedies on technicalities. There is no finality which can be said to have been reached insofar as the appellate remedy is concerned and therefore, the appeal filed by respondent No.9 being proper and correct ought to have been proceeded with to its logical conclusion.
Findings:
On maintainability of contesting candidate's appeal
Firstly, dealing with the issue on maintainability of the appeal filed by Narasingha the court noted “In the present matter, as referred to above, Respondent No.9 is also a contestant for the reserved Constituency of Aurad. In the event of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner being set aside, then the petitioner would not be entitled to participate in the election and as such, the very act of the petitioner contesting in the election would make Respondent No.9 aggrieved by such contesting. And as such, Respondent No.9 cannot be said to be a person who is not aggrieved by the validity certificate issued by the DCVC.”
It added “If the said validity certificate had not been challenged by Shankarrao Doddi, it could not be said that Respondent No.9 did not have any grievance or was not an affected party.”
Following which it held, “If the petitioner were to be contesting in a reserved constituency on the basis of a false certificate obtained by him, I am of the considered opinion that Respondent No.9 could not be said to be a third-party or a stranger, but would have to be considered to be an aggrieved party by the very fact of the petitioner contesting to a reserved constituency on the basis of a false reservation certificate”.
Further the court rejected the contention of petition about res-judicata on account of the earlier order passed by the DCVC, and the earlier appeal filed having been withdrawn.
It said “In both the set of proceedings initiated by Shankarrao Doddi and that initiated by Ravind Swami and Vijay Kumar, the validity or invalidity of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner has not been decided.”
It added “The appeal now filed by respondent No.9 under Section 4D challenging the validity of the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be an abuse of the legal process, nor can it be said to be repeated proceedings. It is for the appellate authority to verify and ascertain the validity or invalidity of the caste certificate.”
If caste/tribe in birth state is not SC/ST then can't take advantage of the same caste/tribe being SC/ST in migration state
On the point whether a person would be entitled to benefit granted to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the State to which the person has migrated to the court said “In one State, a particular Caste or Tribe may be at a disadvantage, while in the other it may not be. If the caste or tribe in the state of Birth is not a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, such person cannot take advantage of the caste being a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe in the state of migration.”
"In that view of the matter, I answer point No.7 by holding that a person born in a caste or community which is not notified as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Caste in the State of birth, upon migration to another State wherein that caste or community is notified as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, will not be entitled to the benefit granted to, such Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the State to which the person has migrated to," it added.
Can High Court consider allegations of fraud or would it be decided by the concerned authority
On this aspect the court observed while point of law is concerned, the court has answered on entitlement but what would have to be considered is where was the petitioner born and then apply the law accordingly.
It then said,“The aspect of birth and the location of birth are all questions of fact, which would have to be established by both the parties before the Appellate Authority and it would not be proper for this Court to appreciate the evidence in this regard in a writ petition".
Dismissing the petition the court said “I am of the considered opinion that no grounds having been made out, this court need not intercede as regards the said show cause notice. It would be for the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority and submit his say in the matter, which would have to be considered by the Appellate Authority and necessary orders passed in accordance with law.”
With respect to the general directions issued, the court asked the state to file a report with respect to the same and listed the matter to report on compliance on April 28.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Ameet Kumar Deshpande FOR Advocate Ganesh S Kalaburgi for Petitioner.
Advocate C Jagadish FOR Advocate Aditya Narayan, Ravi B Patil For C/R9.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
Case Title: Prabhu Chavan AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 203394 OF 2023
