Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., N.V. RAMANA, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Chairman And Managing Director FCI & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8928, 9155, 9157, 9160, 9203-9204, 8926, 9154, 9158-9159 of 2015; 1918 of 2010; C.A. Nos. 8604-05, 8601, 8602-03, 8607, 8609, 8606, 9107, 8598, 8597, 8599-8600, 8610 of 2017 @ SLP(C) Nos. 33864-33865 of 2015, 289, 529-530 of 2016, 14830, 13409, 19992 of 2015, 7187 of 2013, 18925 of 2014, 16852, 29388-29389 of 2016, 2299 of 2017; C.A. No. 8608 of 2017 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 10889 of 2015
Decided On : 06-07-2017
(b) Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 – Section 10 – Invalidation of caste claim of the candidate – Expression “false” in Section 10 necessarily requires presence of mens rea or a dishonest intent – Cancellation of caste certificate u/s 7 and its consequences u/s 10 have to be read harmoniously – Falsity lies in dishonestly setting up of a claim to belong to a reserved category – Invalidation would render the appointment or the admission void and non est – Resulting in formal termination of admission/appointment, unless protected by Court under Article 142. (Para 41, 43, 44)
(2004) 2 SCC 105; (2008) 4 SCC 612; (2005) 7 SCC 690; (2001) 1 SCC 4 – Relied upon
(2012) 8 SCC 430 – Overruled
(1994) 6 SCC 241; (1986) 1 Bom CR 403 – Referred
(c) Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 – Section 10 and 11 – Consequences of invalidation of caste certificate – Civil and criminal – False claim – Withdrawal of civil benefits u/s 10 and prosecution u/s 11 – Incorrect to attach mens rea, i.e., dishonesty for civil consequences – Intention, whether honest or not, irrelevant for withdrawal of civil benefits u/s 10 – Dishonest intent in obtaining false caste certificate relevant for prosecution and punishment u/s 11. (Para 45)
(2013) 16 SCC 526 – Overruled
(d) Administration of justice – Article 142, Constitution of India – Power under – Can be exercised in absence of legislation – When legislature has stepped in to curb the menace Court should not exercise power under Article 142 – Directions in Milind were given in 2000 – Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 enacted in 2001 – Direction in Milind cannot operate after 2001 – Held, Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 applies to admissions or appointments made prior to the date on which the Act came into force. (Para 46, 49)
(2016) 9 SCC 426 – Relied upon
(2001) 1 SCC 4; (2006) 7 SCC 501; C.A. No. 233 of 2007; (2007) 14 SCC 488; (2008) 9 SCC 54; (2008) 14 SCC 545; (2010) 14 SCC 489; (2010) 15 SCC 537; (2011) 9 SCC 798; (2012) 1 SCC 549; (2014) 4 SCC 434; (1994) 1 SCC 359; (2016) 8 SCC 715; (2007) 1 Mh.L.J. 423; (2004) 3 Mh.L.J. 1109; (2009) 4 Mh.L.J. 847 – Referred
(2015) 1 MhLJ 457; (2013) 16 SCC 526 – Overruled
(e) Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 – Sections 7 and 10 – Expression “before or after the commencement of this Act” in section 7 – Scrutiny committee empowered to cancel certificate issued prior to the Act coming into force – Withdrawal of benefit flowing naturally as consequence of invalidation of the claim – Thus when a claim based on false certificate, though antecedent, is invalidated it would result in withdrawal of the benefits – Absence of expression “before or after the commencement of this Act” in section 10 makes no substantive difference – No existing obligations are impaired in sections 7 and 10. (Para 51)
(f) Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 – Section 11 – Obtaining false caste certificate made n offence by the Act and penalties prescribed therefor – Must be construed in prospective sense. (Para 52)
(g) Administrative law – Appointment/admission obtained on caste certificate invalidated after verification – Cannot be protected by administrative circulars or resolutions running contrary to legislative mandate. (Para 53)
(h) Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 – Section 10 – Legislative mandate cannot be outweighed or nullified by pleas of loss of productive societal resources on withdrawal of educational qualification compelling a student to leave the course of studies. (Para 54)
(2017) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This batch of cases pertains to reservations in public employment and involves individuals who sought the benefit of public employment on the basis of a claim to belong to a beneficiary group which has, upon investigation been found to be invalid. Despite the invalidation of the claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe or backward community, these individuals invoked intervention of the Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review.
They assert that equities arise upon a lapse of time and these equities are capable of being protected either by superior Courts under Article 226 or 142.
The present batch of cases raises the fundamental issue as to whether such equities are sustainable at law and, if so, the limits that define the jurisdiction of the court to protect individuals who have secured access to the benefit of reservation inspite of the fact that they do not belong to the caste, tribe or class for whom reservation is intended.
Finding of the Court:
Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false and is invalidated is a necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity would arise;
The decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini are overruled.
The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone is overruled.
Exercise of the jurisdiction under article 142 must have due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 holds the field.
Result: C. A. No.8928 of 2015 disposed of
Civil Appeal No. 9155 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 9157 of 2015; Civil Appeal Nos. 9203-04 of 2015; Civil Appeal No.8926 of 2015; Civil Appeal No.1918 of 2010; C.A. Nos. 8602-03/17; C.A. Nos. 8602-03/17; C.A.No.8607/17; Civil Appeal 8606/17; C.A. No. 9107 of 2015; Civil Appeal No.8597/17; Civil Appeal Nos. 8610/17 allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 9160 of 2015 allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 9154 of 2015; Civil Appeal Nos. 9158-59 of 2015; Civil Appeal Nos.8604-05/17; Civil Appeal No.8601/17; Civil Appeal 8609/17; Civil Appeal 8608/17; Civil Appeal No.8598/17; Civil Appeal Nos.8599-8600/17 dismissed
Key Points: - Withdrawal of benefits following invalidation of a false caste/tribe claim is a necessary consequence, not retrospective, and applies to certificates issued prior to enforcement (Para discussing Milind and subsequent overruling) (!) (!) (!) - Section 7 allows cancellation of false caste certificates issued before or after the Act’s commencement; Section 10 mandates withdrawal of civil benefits and recovery of financial benefits; Section 11 prescribes offences and penalties with scope for prosecution; these provisions are prospective in operation (Sections 7, 10, 11) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court overruled Kavita Solunke and Shalini to reject a required mens rea for civil withdrawals under Section 10, holding that falsity triggers withdrawal of benefits; mens rea is confined to criminal penalties under Section 11 (prospective) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Milind’s directions under Article 142 to protect admissions/appointments are not to defeat statutory mandates; after Act XXIII of 2001, legislative framework governs verification and withdrawal of benefits; reliance on Article 142 is limited and must harmonize with statute (!) (!) (!) - The Full Bench Arun Sonone’s view is rejected; protection of service after invalidation is governed by Kavita Solunke/Shalini framework as clarified, with statute prevailing in applicable cases; finality of certificates and their claims depends on verification outcomes (!) (!) (!) - Precedents recognize that where admissions/appointments were final before Milind, they may remain protected, but the Act’s provisions and judgments indicate careful case-by-case application and no blanket retroactive protection (!) (!) -
JUDGMENT :
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Delay condoned in SLP (C)……CC No. 10889 of 2015.
2. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
A. The perspective
3. The framers of the Constitution conceived of a policy of affirmative action to redress the social exclusion, economic deprivation and political alienation suffered by historically disadvantaged classes of Indian society. Reservation of posts in public employment and seats for admission in educational institutions and the setting apart of seats in electoral bodies was envisaged by the Constitution for the fulfilment of a constitutional aspiration of social justice to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and to socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. In pursuit of the constitutional goal of substantive equality, reservations have been envisaged as a means of enabling members of beneficiary groups to realise, in a true sense, dignity, freedom and liberty which the Constitution guarantees as its basic philosophy. But the problem which has confronted legislatures, policy makers as well as courts (as enforcers of the rule of law) is a capture of the benefits of affirmative action programmes by persons who do not genuinely belong to the beneficiary groups. This kind of capture poses a serious dimension. When a person who does not belong to a caste, tribe or class for whom reservation is meant, seeks to pass off as its member, such a stratagem constitutes a fraud on the Constitution. For one thing a person who is disentitled to the benefit of a welfare measure obtains the benefit. For another this deprives a beneficiary who is genuinely entitled to receive those benefits of a legitimate entitlement. This constitutes an egregious constitutional fraud. It is a fraud on the statutes which implement the provisions of the Constitution. It is a fraud on state policy. Confronted with this problem, the legislatures have intervened with statutory instruments while the executive has, in implementation of law, set down administrative parameters and guidelines to prevent the usurpation of benefits.
4. The batch of cases with which the court is confronted involves individuals who sought the benefit of public employment on the basis of a claim to belong to a beneficiary group which has, upon investigation been found to be invalid. Despite the invalidation of the claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe or backward community, the intervention of the Court is invoked in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The basis for the invocation of jurisdiction lies in an assertion that equities arise upon a lapse of time and these equities are capable of being protected either by the High Court (in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226) or by this Court (when it discharges the constitutional function of doing complete justice under Article 142). The present batch of cases then raises the fundamental issue as to whether such equities are sustainable at law and, if so, the limits that define the jurisdiction of the court to protect individuals who have secured access to the benefit of reservation inspite of the fact that they do not belong to the caste, tribe or class for whom reservation is intended.
5. A large body of precedent has evolved both in the High Courts as well as in this Court in seeking to find answers to pleas raised by individuals that they are entitled to protection by a constitutional court, even after the invalidation of their caste or tribe claims. The decided cases reflect a profound awareness on the part of courts of the human element involved. Assessment of human consequences case by case has resulted in a conflicting line of approach, in the effort of the court to balance the letter of law with a sense of compassion. Since this Bench of three Judges is called upon to seek a median, through the body of judicial precedent, it is, at the outset, necessary to set out the fundamental values and vision which the court must pursu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
