Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil has recently quashed and set aside the order of the scrutiny committee that invalidated the caste certificate issued in favour of BJP MP Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswami while observing that mandatory procedures under Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) Act, 2020 were not followed.

"Upon hearing both sides, we find that the procedure as prescribed under 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 (hereinafter referred to as, “The SC Rules 2012”, for short) has not been followed by the Scrutiny Committee in passing the impugned orders thereby cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner," the bench observed

In 2019, Shivacharya, a Lingayat seer, won the election from the SC-reserved Solapur Lok Sabha constituency, defeating Sushilkumar Shinde of the Congress and Prakash Ambedkar of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi. Allegations were made that Shivacharya, a Lingayat, had obtained a fake SC caste certificate. The caste verification committee declared the certificate invalid, leading the BJP MP to challenge the decision in the high court.

The bench in its order recorded that even though the adverse report of the vigilance officer had been relied upon by the scrutiny committee, the scrutiny committee did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to controvert the opinion of the vigilance officer who had relied upon statements of some witnesses.

The petitioner in its application sought permission from the scrutiny committee to cross-examine the vigilance officer, and, also the concerned witnesses, but, the application was rejected by the scrutiny committee on the ground that there was no provision made in that regard anywhere. However, the high court in its order recorded that,

"The reasons so put forth by the scrutiny committee for rejecting the Application of the Applicant is patently illegal. We may state here that the principle of reasonable opportunity of hearing is inherently present in the provisions made in the SC and ST Act 2000 and also the SC Rules 2012. Section 7 of the SC and ST Act 2000 provides for giving of opportunity of being heard to the claimant, and, Section 8 of the SC and ST Act 2000 lays down that the burden of proving that the person belongs to a particular Caste, Tribe or Class shall be on the person who claims to be so belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class," the court recorded. 

The division bench also observed it was essential for the scrutiny committee in the case to have allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the vigilance officer, and, also the witnesses who had spoken against the claim of the petitioner. 

The bench also noted that the mandatory provisions of the act were substantially bypassed by the scrutiny committee

"Thus, it is quite clear that 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 impugned orders, therefore, cannot stand the scrutiny of law and they deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing this Petition," 

The high court then remanded back the case to the scrutiny committee and directed the committee to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. 

Case title: Dr Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswamiji vs State of Maharashtra