Can 'Sikh Chamar' Be Regarded As 'Mochi' Caste In Maharashtra? Supreme Court Considers In Navneet Kaur Rana's Case

Senior Advocate Mr Kapil Sibal appearing for one of the respondents(opposing the caste status of Navneet Kaur Rana), stressed that the very purpose of the 1950 Order was to ensure that fraudulent certificates were not issued to misuse the provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution.

“ What's the purpose of this? To ensure that I do not fabricate documents and lead evidence to say that this caste is mentioned here, though I belong to this segment (within an SC) though it is not directly mentioned here but declare that I am part of this caste. Why was the Presidential order declared in 1950? To ensure that no such inquiry takes place because , what will happen in politics- no rule- number of such claims will be made …The idea is to avoid infiltration into the political arena of people who do not directly or specifically belong to that caste. To infiltrate into the system, claim that and fight in the Parliament.”

Mr Sibal, while dealing with the interpretation of law, focused on how Article 341 of the Constitution provided powers to the President to notify and designate a caste as a 'Scheduled Caste' and Article 366(24) provided for the definition of 'Scheduled Caste'.

"Scheduled Castes" means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution;”

Mr Sibal analysed that the above definition was an all-inclusive one. He said, “It enumerates not just the caste, the Castes within the Scheduled Caste by whatever nomenclature or parts of such castes, whatever the nomenclature as are set out and are deemed to be such castes.”

Picking from there, Mr Sibal emphasized that the contention of the petitioner to view the caste 'Ravidaasiya Mochi' as synonymous to 'Mochi/Mochigar/Chambhar' (the latter being enlisted under the 1950 Constitution Order under State List of Bombay) would be incorrect as the former is a subclassification of the category mochi and by allowing so, the Court would step into the shoes of the Parliament in modifying the Scheduled Caste list.

Mr Sibal further argued that while Ravidaasiya Caste was notified under the Punjab List, the same was not there under the Bombay List and hence the petitioner could not avail the benefits of being a Ravidaasiya in Maharashtra. He opined, “ This matter could have been closed the day she was not able to establish that she didn't fall in the state entry (as specified in 1950 Order)”

To which Justice Sanjay Karol inquired, “ Suppose a person is a mochi in a state where it is not notified and he migrates to another state, where he is notified to be mochi, would he be or not be entitled to the benefit?”

Sibal answered that it depends, on the date of migration as such persons are required to come before the deemed date of such a notification.

Ravidaasiya Mochi or Sikh Chamar? - Petitioner Clarifies

The case of the petitioner Navneet Kaur Rana was that her forefathers belonged to the Sikh-Chamaar Caste. It was explained that 'Sikh' here was a religious pre-fix and doesn't pertain to the caste. 'Chamar' is the caste of the petitioner. It was contended that the forefathers of the petitioner were cobblers- mochi and were interrelated to the skin tanners- 'Chamaars'.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appearing on behalf of the petitioner, explained, “ Sikh is a religious pre-fix, it's not a caste. Caste is chamaar or mochi. So far as the Ravidaasiya is concerned, it is mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib is one of the Gurus (of the 10 Sikh Gurus) and is referred to as both a Mochi and a Chamaar”

Mr Mehta further submitted that both Chamaar and Mochi are enlisted in the Constitutional Presidential Order of 1950.

However, taking note of the fact that the caste certificate only mentions 'mochi' in the designated area, Justice JK Maheshwari asked, “ You are Sikh, alright? Where does 'Sikh Chamar' or 'Ravidaasiya Mochi' this word has come from? Because the certificate only says mochi”

To which Mr Mehta replied that the indenture of tenancy which the petitioner relies upon to verify her caste certificate mentions 'Sikh Chamaar' so does the bonafide certificate along with the original register of the year 1946 (the documents which were accepted by the Scrutiny Committee). The pedigree (the genealogy etc) , and the revenue records mention the caste as 'Ravidaasiya Mochi' and the verification inquiry relies upon the same.

On the Decision Of The High Court -

The Petitioner drew the attention of the bench to the following observation in the Impugned Judgement and dissected it further. Paragraph 118 of the judgement of the High Court reads as follows :

“118. Insofar as the alleged rent agreement of the grand-father of the respondent no.3 dated 28th July, 1932 stating the address '22, 2nd Fofalwadi, Bhuleshwar is concerned, the Vigilance Cell Officer stated that the enquiry in respect of the said document was conducted in the Bhuleshwar area but due to insufficient address and the name of the building, nobody of that area could inform about the said address. In the said report, the Vigilance Cell Officer opined that the school leaving certificate no. 11166 showing caste Mochi by Municipal Primary School, Poisar, Borivali in favour of the father of respondent no.3 was not issued by the said school. The verification of the rent agreement dated 28th July, 1932 could not be done as the name and address were insufficient.”

Relying upon the same Mr Mehta contended that It is as if the High Court is reconducting the trial and reappreciating the evidence.

It was further argued that the scrutiny committee is an expert body, which has examined the documents and arrived at a conclusion. In supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court, even if there is an error in fact or law, cannot interfere. A purchase agreement of a property was also examined by the scrutiny committee which the High Court overlooked.

The High Court in the impugned judgement failed to be convinced of the reason why the caste of the petitioner's father was mentioned in the school leaving certificate which according to the bench was rather unusual. Rebutting the same, Mr Mehta relied upon Paragraph 10 of the decision of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development to show that it was a common practice in the pre-constitution era to mention castes in school certificates.

“10. The entries in the school register preceding the Constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste. Hierarchical caste stratification of Hindu social order has its reflection in all entries in the public records. What would, therefore, depict the caste status of the people inclusive of the school or college records, as the then census rules insisted upon. Undoubtedly, Hindu social order is based on hierarchy and caste was one of the predominant factors during pre-Constitution period. Unfortunately instead of dissipating its incursion it is being needlessly accentuated, perpetrated and stratification is given legitimacy for selfish ends instead of being discouraged and put an end to by all measures, including administrative and legislative. Be it as it may, people are identified by their castes for one or the other is a reality. Therefore, it is no wonder that caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public records or school or college admission register at the relevant time and the certificates are issued on its basis…”

Mehta, drawing an analogy of how the respondents objected to the petitioner being a 'Sikh Chamaar', pointed out that the complainant (the private respondent in the present case) claimed himself to be a “Hindu-Chambhar” which itself it recognised as a Scheduled Caste.

To which Justice JK Maheshwari said, “ So you want to say that this man says that I am a Hindu Chambhar, he may not be a Hindu Chambhar…using of the word 'Hindu' as you are using the word 'Sikh', so he cannot be permitted to say”

Mr Mehta agreed with the said understanding.

Arguments By The Respondents

Mr Shadan Farasat appearing on behalf of the Respondents at the outset informed the bench that the caste certificate issuance process started only after the Petitioner, who was an actress by profession, married MLA Ravi Rana (from the general category) in 2011 and the said certificate was obtained in order to be able to contest elections from the Amravati Constituency which was a reserved constituency. The respondents asserted that the documents relied upon to obtain the caste certificate and the complete verification process was nothing short of a political gimmick to get electoral benefits.

Mr Farasat expressed, “The High Court has made scathing remarks that this is nothing but a complete fraud and my lords we will seek to make it good. That this is not just a case for simplictor dismissal but this is a case for imposition of costs and also for prosecution.”

The respondents contended that the caste certificate mentioning 'mochi' cannot be supported by documents showing 'sikh chamar' - “the question is she able to verify that she is a mochi” , it was contended that all her documents mention just 'mochi' and not 'sikh chamaar'. It was also submitted that there were 2 rounds of verification and the 1st round did not show any supporting documents.

Mr Farasat explained that in the first round of application for verification, the petitioner sought the validity of her certificate without any proper scrutiny. This however was challenged and the verification order of the scrutiny committee dated 25.9.2013 was set aside. The verification process after that took place for the second time.

The order of the scrutiny committee dated 25.9.2013 was informed to the bench to be off the record. Justice Maheshwari, however, asked the same to be produced and remarked, “We want on record to understand what the order contained.”

Relying upon past judicial precedents, Mr Farasat argued that if valid caste certificates of one state are not recognised in another state, “Where is the question of a document which can be a basis to get a caste certificate in another state.”

He elaborated further, “ They relied upon documents from Punjab, but the Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected it because it was incomplete but it was nevertheless not open to the caste scrutiny committee to examine the documents and give a certificate for Maharashtra.”

Mr Farasat dwelled further to explain how it is not necessary for a caste notified as a Scheduled Caste in one state under Article 341 would be similarly notified in another state, as such Scheduled designations are based on the “sociological framework of a State”. In arguing so, he underscored the essence of equitable social situations in different regions of the country and how one community may not necessarily need special protection/reservation benefits in another region of the same country.

The hearing will now continue on Wednesday ( February 28)

The Bombay High Court's Order of cancellation was stayed in 2021 by the Supreme Court.

However, on an earlier occasion, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Amravati MP, had submitted that the terms "Mochi" and "chamaar" are synonymous

Case Details : Navneet Kaur vs The State of Maharashtra | SLP [C] No. 7776/2021