Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Sachin Bharat Thorat, Adv. Mr. Ashok Janrao, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv. Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Praveen Arya, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Vajpayee, Adv. Ms. Divyangna Malik, Adv. for M/s. Lawfic, AOR Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Sagar N. Pahune Patil, Adv. Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv.

Key Points: - The Supreme Court restored the Scrutiny Committee's 03.11.2017 validation order and set aside the High Court’s reversal, emphasizing that certiorari should not reappraise evidence unless perverse, and that Scrutiny Committee has the exclusive domain to evaluate caste claims. (!) (!) - Writ of certiorari is a supervisory remedy and should not substitute the appellate function by reweighing evidence, except where perversity or lack of jurisdiction is shown. (!) (!) - The Act (2000) and Rules (2012) assign finality to Scrutiny Committee decisions under Section 7(2) and provide that Vigilance Cell findings are not binding on the Committee, which conducts its own scrutiny and can finalize a decision with Form-20/22/24 as appropriate. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Committee can validate claims based on documents and pedigree evidence, with objective evaluation of evidence and application of mind, and High Court should refrain from roving inquiries into credibility absent perverse findings. (!) (!) (!) - The decision to validate the appellant’s caste claim was upheld on remand, based on documents including a bona fide certificate and 1932 tenancy indenture, while noting the High Court’s overreach in reappraising evidence. (!) (!) (!) - The case clarifies that Presidential Order sub-castes need not be amended by the Court; the Court can adjudicate within the scope of existing legal framework and the Appellant’s genealogical claim. (!)

How to determine whether the High Court can substitute its own view of factual evidence in a writ of certiorari challenging a Scrutiny Committee's caste certificate validation?

How to assess the scope of Article 226 writs to correct jurisdictional errors without reappreciating evidence in caste claim verifications under the Maharashtra 2000 Act and 2012 Rules?

What is the proper role of the Vigilance Cell versus the Scrutiny Committee in verifying caste certificates and finalizing validity certificates?