Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Probe Into BJP MLA’s Caste Certificate, Sets 60-Day Deadline

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide a complaint filed by Congress leader Pradeep Ahirwar challenging the validity of a caste certificate issued to Raigaon BJP MLA Pratima Bagri, within a fixed timeline, while underlining the need for procedural fairness and timely adjudication.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition after recording the submissions of Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner, who sought a limited direction to the competent authority to decide his complaint dated March 31, 2025 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the private respondent, Smt. Pratima Bagri.

Appearing for the State, Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma assured the Court that the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee would examine the grievance, call the concerned respondent, and carry out verification in accordance with the prescribed procedure. He further submitted that a decision, if not already taken, would be communicated to the petitioner within sixty days.

Accepting the statement, the Bench directed that the Committee shall determine “whether the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3 showing her to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community, is valid” and pass an appropriate order within sixty days from the date of communication of the order. The Court emphasized that verification must be undertaken strictly in accordance with law, signalling that caste status disputes cannot be left to administrative delay or informal processes.

The order also records that both parties undertook to communicate the directions to the Committee by April 30, 2026, thereby triggering the timeline for compliance. Importantly, the Bench clarified that if the Committee fails to pass an order within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the writ petition.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the directions, with the Court making it clear that the petitioner’s grievance would stand addressed through a lawful and transparent process.

Counsel for the petitioner, pressed for a structured timeline, arguing that prolonged inaction undermines the credibility of statutory remedies and leaves serious allegations unresolved. He submitted that “the complaint is pending despite being duly filed on affidavit,” and therefore warranted a clear direction. On the other hand, the State, through its counsel, maintained that the competent authority would act in accordance with law and complete the exercise within the time granted.

Case Title: Pradeep Ahirwar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh