Error Of Scrutiny Committee Validating Caste Certificate Can't Be Challenged In Election Petition: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Against Congress MP

The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad on Tuesday dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Congress leader Shivaji Kalge to the 18th Lok Sabha, from Latur constituency in Maharashtra.

A candidate from the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) had challenged Kalge's election on the ground that he fraudulently won the election by claiming to be belonging to the 'Mala Jangam' case of the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Notably, Kalge had won with a margin of 61,881 votes in the Latur constituency.

Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that the petitioner failed to prove its case as Kalge successfully established that he belonged to the SC category by submitting a 'caste validity certificate' issued by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee.

It went on to hold that merely alleging fraud in obtaining judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting validity to the caste certificate of the returned candidate is not sufficient as,

"Even an erronous (sic) decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, granting validity to the caste certificate cannot be challenged in election petition. Election petition being the serious matter, no inquiry can be continued in to the status of the respondent No. 1/returned candidate as the candidate has a caste certificate and a caste validity certificate granted by the Scrutiny Committee. The judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting declaration of caste status is a judgment in Rem. The status of the person cannot be different from that granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee unless the judgment of Caste Scrutiny Committee granting the validity certificate is vitiated by fraud and has to be ignored."

The judge also observed that election petition being a serious matter, cannot be allowed in favour of a person who uses it for 'vexatious' purpose. It said an election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action.

The judge noted that though the petitioner through advocate Jayshree Patil contended that Kalge did not submit his 'caste validity certificate' before the Returning Officer (RO), the material on record, indicated that the returned candidate had submitted his caste certificate and even the validity certificate during the stage of 'scrutiny' by the RO. The judge further noted the fact that the RO passed a reasoned order on the 'objections' raised by the petitioners at that very stage, dismissing the objections.

"The reasoned order of the Returning Officer rejecting the objections is not annexed with the petition. The election petitioners have produced incomplete documents which were before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of which they seek declaration that Kalge does not belong to Scheduled Caste Category as claimed by him. This Court in absence of pleading of material facts as to how the judgment of the caste validity certificate is obtained by fraud cannot entertain the present election petitions as the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the 2000 Act has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of caste certificate granted in favour of the returned candidate," the court said.

The bench emphasised that since Kalge submitted the caste certificate and also the validity certificate before the RO, there was no scope for the RO to not accept the same.

"Therefore, I deem it appropriate to hold that the election petitions are bereft of material particulars as to how the judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting validity to the caste certificate of the returned candidate is vitiated by fraud and needs to be ignored is not pleaded. Mere usage of words like 'fraudulent' and 'fake' documents and production of some contra documents which would indicate that the returned candidate does not belong to 'Mala Jangam' caste is not sufficient," the bench observed.

With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition summarily without issuing notice to the respondents.

Appearance:

Advocates Jayshree Patil and Uttam Telgaonkar appeared for the Petitioners.

Case Title: Narsingrao Udgirkar vs Shivaji Kalge (EP/3/2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Order