IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Narsingrao s/o. Nivruttirao Udgirkar - Petitioner
Versus
Shivaji s/o. Bandappa Kalge and ors. - Respondents
Election Petition No. 3 Of 2024, Election Petition No. 6 Of 2024
Decided On : 10-09-2024
Election - Qualification - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 4(a), 33(2), 100(1)(a), 100(1)(d)(i) - The court emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in determining caste validity, highlighting the necessity of proper documentation and the inability of civil courts to intervene in caste status determinations.
Fact of the Case:
Two election petitions challenged the election of a candidate on grounds of improper caste certification, alleging he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category as claimed. The petitions presented various documents to support their claims of fraudulent caste certificate acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petitions lacked sufficient material facts to challenge the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The petitions were dismissed for failing to establish a cause of action.
Issues: Whether the election petitions provided sufficient material facts to challenge the caste status of the returned candidate and whether the court could intervene in the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has exclusive jurisdiction to determine caste validity, and election petitions must clearly plead how such determinations are vitiated by fraud or error. Mere allegations without substantial evidence are insufficient.
Result: The election petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
1. Election Petition Nos. 3 of 2024 and 6 of 2024 are filed, challenging the election of respondent No. 1 – Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, the returned candidate from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, State of Maharashtra for the election held on 7.5.2024 on the ground of qualification or disqualification of the returned candidate by contending that the returned candidate does not belong to the ‘Mala Jangam’ Scheduled Caste category as declared by him in his nomination papers. Both the petitions are taken up for hearing jointly in view of the provisions of section 86 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the R.P. Act’ for short).
2. In Election Petition No. 3/2024, the petitioner seeks declaration that on the date of election, the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste member or he was not having requisite qualification within the meaning of Section 4 (a) of the R.P. Act, to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from 41- Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner also seeks declaration that the election of respondent No.1/returned candidate has been materially affected by the acceptance of his nomination along with his caste certificate, validity certificate, affidavit, declaration and nomination by the returning officer and as such, be declared void. Thus, the petitioner challenges election of respondent No. 1/returned candidate on the grounds mentioned in section 100 (1)(a), 100 (1) (d) (i) & (iv) r/w. section 4 (a) of the R.P. Act.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3/2024 that the respondent No. 1 belongs to Hindu Jangam caste, at Sr. No. 58, which is recognised as Other Backward Class under the Maharashtra Government Resolution Nos. (1) 1096/PK-48/MVK-5 dated 03.06.1986, (2) CBC 1098/PK-185/OBC-5 dated 1.1.2001 and (3) CBC-14/2001/PK-232/MVK-5 dated 1.6.2004. Respondent No. 1 is an elector for 41 Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State and his name is entered at Sr. No. 973, in Part No. 157 of the elector roll for 238 – Nilanga Assembly Constituency, comprised within 41 Latur Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State. It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner and other respondent Nos. 5 to 30 have contested the election to the House of People from 41-Latur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Maharashtra State in which they all have lost the same whereas the respondent No. 1 has won the election by margin of 61881 votes. Respondent No. 1 belongs to the Indian National Congress party whereas petitioner belongs to Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi.
4. To substantiate the case, the petitioner has relied on following documents :-
(b) One Chandrama Kashinath Kalge is cousin sister of respondent No. 1 and in the General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of village Ankulga (Rani), at Sr. No. 51, her caste is shown to be Lingayat (Jangam) and it falls in Other Backward Class.
(c) One Lata Bai Bandappa Kalge is the real sister of respondent No.1 and her caste in the General Register of Zilla Parishad, Primary School of village Ankulnga (Rani) is shown to be Lingayat (Jangam), so also in her school leaving certificate dated 12.06.1974 she is shown to be Hindu Jangam, which is recognized as Other Backward Class.
(d) One Shankar Shivbas Kalge is real cousin brother of respondent and his caste is Jangam.
(e) In the Khasara Pahani Patrak record i.e. Village Namuna Number 13 of village Ankulnga (Rani) the caste of her real uncles by name Vadappa Mahalingappa, Kashinath Mahalingappa and Vishwanath
Bhagwati Prasad Dixit “Ghorewala’ Vs. Rajeev Gandhi
Collector, Bilaspur Vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Ors
Kumari Madhuri Patil V. Commissioner
Mohan Rawale Vs. Damodar Tatyaba @ Dadasaheb & Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 392
Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 244
The Caste Scrutiny Committee's determination of caste validity is exclusive and cannot be challenged in election petitions without clear evidence of fraud or error.
The court affirmed the validity of the caste certificate of the respondent and dismissed the election petition for lack of merit, emphasizing that caste status disputes must be resolved by the Caste ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court, and knowingly producing fabricated and fraudulent documents to ....
The Supreme Court clarified that election petitions challenging caste qualifications must prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and a valid caste certificate remains presumptively valid unless....
In cases of false and bogus caste validity certificates, it is not necessary to approach the Caste Scrutiny Committees, and the Commissioner has the authority to disqualify a candidate.
Caste certificates must be challenged through statutory procedures, not writ petitions; disputes regarding caste status are to be resolved within the framework of the applicable legislation.
The Caste Scrutiny Committee lacks the authority to review a validated caste certificate; it can only cancel it if fraud is proven, and must afford a fair hearing as dictated by principles of natural....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirement for issuing a show cause notice when the vigilance report is in favor of the petitioner, as required by Rule 17(11)(i) o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.