Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Mr. K.N. Rai, Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Aaditya Pande, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Mr. Kishor Lambat, For M/s. Lambat And Associates, Ms.Indra Sawhney, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, Mr. Sri Ram J. Thalapathy, Mr. V. Adhimoolam, Mr. Shilp Vinod, Mr. Kishor Lambat, Mr. Rabin Majumder, Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, Mr. Debesh Panda, Mr. Uday B. Dube, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mr. C.G. Solshe, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, M/s. S.M. Jadhav And Company, Mrs. Gunjan Sinha, For M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Mr. Kishor Lambat, For M/s. Lambat And Associates, Ms. Manju Jetley, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. Suhas Kadam, For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Aaditya Pande, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv.

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 (!) (!) -

What is the effect of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 on admissions and appointments made prior to its enforcement?

What is required to withdraw benefits or punish under Section 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, and is mens rea required for civil withdrawals?

What is the proper scope of Article 142 in preserving admissions and appointments under Milind, Kavita Solunke, and Shalini versus the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001?