Bombay High Court Quashes Scrutiny Committee's Order Cancelling Solapur BJP MP’s Caste Certificate, Remands Matter For Fresh Hearing

A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh S Patil remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration observing that the committee did not follow the mandatory procedure.

“The scrutiny committee has substantially bypassed the mandatory procedure prescribed in the SC and SC Act 2000 and the SC Rules 2012 in passing the impugned order, and, as such has committed a patent illegality in the matter”, the court held.

The court found that the Scrutiny Committee failed to record the necessary satisfaction and denied Shivacharya the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the vigilance officer, violating the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.

In 2019, Shivacharya won the election from the Solapur Lok Sabha constituency, which is reserved for Scheduled Castes. He defeated Congress leader Sushilkumar Shinde and Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi’s (VBA) Prakash Ambedkar. VBA leader Pramod Gaikwad and two others lodged complaints alleging that Shivacharya, a Lingayat, had been elected from an SC-reserved seat. Gaikwad further claimed that Shivacharya obtained a bogus caste certificate designating him as 'beda jangam', which falls under the SC category. Shivacharya denied the allegations. The Scrutiny Committee cancelled Shivacharya’s caste certificate. Thus, he filed the present writ petition.

The court observed that Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Rules requires the committee to record satisfaction that the applicant's statements and documents are insufficient to prove his claim of belonging to a scheduled caste, leading to the necessity of a suitable inquiry by the vigilance cell. However, the committee did not fulfil this requirement.

The scrutiny committee relied on an adverse report by the vigilance officer without granting Shivacharya an opportunity to contest it through cross-examination or present his side of the case, the court noted.

Shivacharya’s application seeking permission to cross-examine the vigilance officer and the relevant witnesses was rejected on the ground that the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes, D-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the 2012 Rules lacked any provision for such cross examination.

The court emphasized that the Act inherently embodies the principle of reasonable opportunity to be heard. Sections 7 and 8 of the Act provide for the opportunity to be heard and place the burden of proof on the claimant. Rule 17(11)(ii) and (iii) of the 2012 Rules also provide for offering an opportunity of hearing to the claimant. Therefore, the court concluded that it was essential for the scrutiny committee to allow Shivacharya to cross-examine the vigilance officer and the witnesses who testified against his claim.

In Maharashtra Adhiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court said that the scrutiny committee cannot mechanically forward an application for inquiry and must provide brief reasons for not being satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant. The court found that the scrutiny committee in the present case failed to follow this procedure.

Therefore, the court remanded the matter back to the scrutiny committee for fresh consideration. It directed the committee to conduct a new inquiry following the prescribed procedure, provide an opportunity for all parties to be heard, and make a decision within a reasonable period, preferably within six months

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 3469 of 2021

Case Title – Dr. Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswamiji v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.