If Caste Validity Certificate Not Produced Within 12 Months Of Election, Panchayat Member From Reserved Seat Will Be Disqualified In Maharashtra: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that Panchayat members in Maharashtra, who got elected from a seat reserved for SC/OBC, will stand automatically disqualified if they fail to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee regarding their Caste Certificate within 12 months from the date of election.This is because of the operation of Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats...
The Supreme Court has held that Panchayat members in Maharashtra, who got elected from a seat reserved for SC/OBC, will stand automatically disqualified if they fail to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee regarding their Caste Certificate within 12 months from the date of election.
This is because of the operation of Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959.
According to 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 [ “Caste Certificate Act, 2000”], a person desirous of contesting from a reserved seat must obtain a Caste Certificate from the competent authority. The Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority would be valid subject to the verification and grant of the Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.
As per Section 10-1A of the Panchayats Act, persons desirous of contesting from reserved seats must produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee along with the nomination papers. The proviso of this section gives a widow of 12 months from the date of the election to produce the Validity Certificate if the person does not possess the same at the time of filing nominations. The provision further states that the if the validity certificate is not produced within the 12-month window, then "his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a member.".
This provision was declared to be mandatory by the Bombay High Court in Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors[2017]. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment in Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others[2019].
In the instant case, the Appellant No. 1 fought the Gram Panchayat of Village Jambulan elections as a reserved Member. On 30.12.2020 (the date of his nomination), he applied for the Validity Certificate to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The elections were held on 18.01.2021, and 21.01.2021 the results were declared, making Appellant No. 1 an elected member. The twelve-month period expired on 20.01.2022. However, he failed to produce the certificate thus resulting in the automatic disqualification of his membership. Since the High Court ruled against the appellants, they approached the Supreme Court.
Since the candidate had defaulted in producing the Validity Certificate, his election was liable to be declared invalid, held the Supreme Court. The next question was whether the candidate was entitled to the protection of Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads, and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023.
The Supreme Court held that he was not entitled to the protection under the Temporary Extension Act, as he failed to communicate the election result to the Scrutiny Committee within the stipulated time in terms of the general directions issued by the Bombay High Court in Mandakani Kachru Kokane alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Pertinently, his validity of the membership was linked with the No Confidence Motion passed against the Sarpanch (Appellant No. 2). To understand, a Motion of No Confidence was to be carried by not less than three-fourths of the total number of members who were entitled, to 'sit' and 'vote.' If Appellant No. 1 were entitled to 'Sit' as a member, then the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2 could not have 'Stand.'
Thus, the Division Bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Vishwanath held that No Confidence Motion was duly carried against Sarpanch.
“From those who aspire to contest for a reserved seat and who take a risk of applying for the validity certificate by filing an application before the date of nomination, it is prudent to expect that they will show utmost due diligence in the prosecution of their application. This would mean that they are expected to do all that is within their control to do and submit with the Scrutiny Committee a valid application for their consideration.,” the Court added.
Besides, the Court also noted that Appellant No.1 did not do everything required, which was well within his control. It was pointed out that the appellant's application was still pending on 10.07.2023, i.e., when the Temporary Extension Act came into effect.
Thus, the Court was of the view that extending protection under this act would be letting Appellant No.1 take advantage of his wrong.
In view of this, the Court held that Appellant No.1 has ceased to be a member because of the automatic disqualification.
“The High Court was also justified in directing that the Appellant No.2 should stop exercising the powers as a sarpanch and in further directing that the election for the post of village Sarpanch be notified afresh.,” the Court held in its judgment.
Case Title: SUDHIR VIKAS KALEL vs. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL., Diary No.- 41796 – 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 99