caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Chandrabhan vs State Of Maharashtra . on 10 August, 2021Author: Uday Umesh Lalit
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.370 OF 2017
CHANDRABHAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 06.04.2016
passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ
Petition No.2153 of 2016.
The basic issue that arose in the instant proceedings was whether
the appellant was right in his submission that he belonged to
Scheduled Tribe, named, “Halba”.
After going through the record, the Caste Scrutiny Committee
negated the submission and gave a positive finding that the claim so
propounded by the appellant was completely unsustainable and that he
did not belong to the Schedule Tribe, named, “Halba”.
It must be stated that a Constitution Bench of this Court in
State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Others1, was called upon to decide
whether “Halba-Koshtis” from the State of Maharashtra could be
Signature Not Verified
treated as “Halba/Halbi”.
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2021.08.13
18:36:18 IST
Reason:
1 (2001) 1 SCC 4
2
The Constitution Bench concluded:
“36. In the light of what is stated above, the
following positions emerge:
1. It is not at all permissible to hold any
inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or
declare that any tribe or tribal community or
part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community is included in the general name even
though it is not specifically mentioned in the
entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950.
2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as
it is. It is not even permissible to say that a
tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe
or tribal community is synonymous to the one
mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they
are not so specifically mentioned in it.
3. A notification issued under clause (1) of
Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be
amended only by law to be made by Parliament. In
other words, any tribe or tribal community or
part of or group within any tribe can be included
or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes
issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by
Parliament by law and by no other authority.
4. It is not open to State Governments or
courts or tribunals or any other authority to
modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled
Tribes specified in the notification issued
under clause (1) of Article 342.
5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this
Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar and
Dina v. Narain Singh did not lay down law
correctly in stating that the inquiry was
permissible and the evidence was admissible
within the limitations indicated for the purpose
of showing what an entry in the Presidential
Order was intended to be. As stated in Position
(1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and
no evidence can be let in, in the matter.”
3
However, it was observed by this Court:
“38. Respondent 1 joined the medical course for
the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by
now. We are told he has already completed the course
and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this
view and at this length of time it is for nobody’s
benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent
on each candidate for completion of medical course.
No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived
of joining medical course by the admission given to
Respondent 1. If any action is taken against
Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service
of a doctor to the society on whom public money has
already been spent. In these circumstances, this
judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him
and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear
that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe
covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other
words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled
Tribes Order any further or for any other
constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage
of time, in the given circumstances, including
interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C)
No.16372 of 1985 and other related matters, we make
it clear that the admissions and appointments that
have become final, shall remain unaffected by this
judgment.”
The decision in Milind & Others (supra), was delivered on
28.11.2000.
Soon thereafter, the 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, enacted
by the State Legislature came into force on 17.10.2001. Section 10
of the said Act is to the following effect:
“10. Benefits secured on the basis of false Caste
Certificate to be withdrawn. (1) Whoever not being a person
belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures
admission in any educational institution against a seat
4
reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any
appointment in the Government, local authority or in any
other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the
Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-
operative Society against a post reserved for such Castes,
Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate
shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the
Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the
concerned educational institution, or as the case may be,
discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other
benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or
appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn
forthwith.
(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or
any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or
other financial benefit shall be recovered from such person
as an arrears of land revenue.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the
time being in force, any Degree, Diploma, or any other
educational qualification acquired by such person after
securing admission in any educational institution on the
basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved
to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of
such Caste Certificate, by the Scrutiny Committee.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for
being a member of any statutory body if he has contested
the election for local authority, co-operative society or
any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as
belonging to such Caste Tribe or Class on such false Caste
Certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and
any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable
as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person
shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively.”
Considering various questions including the observations made
in paragraph 38 of the decision of this Court in Milind & Others
(supra) and the impact of the aforesaid legislation enacted by the
State, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chairman and Managing
Director, Food Corporation of India & Others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahra
5
& Others2, concluded as under:
62. The regime which obtained since 2-9-1994 under the
directions in Madhuri Patil [Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal
Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349] was
granted a statutory status by the enactment of Maharashtra
Act 23 of 2001. Section 7 provides for the cancellation and
confiscation of a false caste certificate whether it was
issued before or after the commencement of the Act. The
expression “before or after the commencement of this Act”
indicates that the Scrutiny Committee constituted under
Section 6 is empowered to cancel a caste certificate whether
it was issued prior to 18-10-2001 or thereafter. Section 10
which provides for the withdrawal of benefits secured on
the basis of a false caste certificate which is withdrawn
is essentially a consequence of the cancellation of the
caste certificate. Where a candidate has secured admission
to an educational institution on the basis that he or she
belongs to a designated reserved category and it is found
upon investigation that the claim to belong to that category
is false, admission to the institution necessarily falls
with the invalidation of the caste certificate. Admission
being founded on a claim to belong to a specified caste,
tribe or class, it is rendered void upon the claim being
found to be untrue. The same must hold in the case of an
appointment to a post. Therefore, the absence of the words
“before or after the commencement of this Act” in Section
10 makes no substantive difference because a withdrawal of
benefit is an event which flows naturally and as a plain
consequence of the invalidation of the claim. Moreover, as
we have seen even prior to the enactment of the State
legislation, the benefit which was secured on the basis of
a caste claim was liable to be withdrawn upon its
invalidation. The Act has hence neither affected vested
rights nor has it imposed new burdens. The Act does not
impair existing obligations in Sections 7 and 10.
66. One of the considerations which is placed in store
before the court, particularly when an admission to an
educational institution is sought to be cancelled upon the
invalidation of a caste or tribe claim is that the student
has substantially progressed in the course of studies and a
cancellation of admission would result in prejudice not only
to the student but to the system as well. When the student
has completed the degree or diploma, a submission against
its withdrawal is urged a fortiori. In our view, the State
Legislature has made a statutory decision amongst competing
claims, based on a public policy perspective which the court
must respect. The argument that there is a loss of
productive societal resources when an educational
2 (2017) 8 SCC 670
6
qualification is withdrawn or a student is compelled to
leave the course of studies (when he or she is found not to
belong to the caste or tribe on the basis of which admission
to a reserved seat was obtained) cannot possibly outweigh
or nullify the legislative mandate contained in Section 10
of the State legislation. When a candidate is found to have
put forth a false claim of belonging to a designated caste,
tribe or class for whom a benefit is reserved, it would be
a negation of the rule of law to exercise the jurisdiction
under Article 142 to protect that individual. Societal good
lies in ensuring probity. That is the only manner in which
the sanctity of the system can be preserved. The legal
system cannot be seen as an avenue to support those who make
untrue claims to belong to a caste or tribe or socially and
educationally backward class. These benefits are provided
only to designated castes, tribes or classes in accordance
with the constitutional scheme and cannot be usurped by
those who do not belong to them. The credibility not merely
of the legal system but also of the judicial process will
be eroded if such claims are protected in exercise of the
constitutional power conferred by Article 142 despite the
State law.
69. For these reasons, we hold and declare that:
69.1. The directions which were issued by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in para 38 of the decision
in Milind [State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 :
2001 SCC (L&S) 117] were in pursuance of the powers vested
in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution;
69.2. Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil
[Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC
241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349] which was rendered on 2-9-1994,
the regime which held the field in pursuance of those
directions envisaged a detailed procedure for:
(a) the issuance of caste certificates;
(b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe
claims by Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the
State Government;
(c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation
into the authenticity of the claim;
(d) Cancellation and confiscation of the caste
certificate where the claim is found to be false or not
genuine;
7
(e) Withdrawal of benefits in terms of the
termination of an appointment, cancellation of an
admission to an educational institution or
disqualification from an electoral office obtained on
the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved
category; and
(f) Prosecution for a criminal offence.
69.3.The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai
[R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 :
2004 SCC (L&S) 350] and in Dattatray [Union of India v.
Dattatray, (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6] which
were rendered by Benches of three Judges laid down the
principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an
individual-such as an appointment to a post or admission to
an educational institution—on the basis that the candidate
belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is
reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon
verification would result in the appointment or, as the case
may be, the admission being rendered void or non est.
69.4. The exception to the above doctrine was in those
cases where this Court exercised its power under Article 142
of the Constitution to render complete justice;
69.5. By Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 there is a legislative
codification of the broad principles enunciated in Madhuri
Patil [Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994)
6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349] . The legislation provides
a statutory framework for regulating the issuance of caste
certificates (Section 4); constitution of Scrutiny
Committees for verification of claims (Section 6);
submission of applications for verification of caste
certificates [Sections 6(2) and 6(3)]; cancellation of caste
certificates (Section 7); burden of proof (Section 8);
withdrawal of benefits obtained upon the invalidation of the
claim (Section 10); and initiation of prosecution (Section
11), amongst other things;
69.6. The power conferred by Section 7 upon the Scrutiny
Committee to verify a claim is both in respect of caste
certificates issued prior to and subsequent to the
enforcement of the Act on 18-10-2001. Finality does not
attach to a caste certificate (or to the claim to receive
benefits) where the claim of the individual to belong to a
reserved caste, tribe or class is yet to be verified by the
Scrutiny Committee;
69.7. Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a
caste claim which has been found to be false and is
8
invalidated is a necessary consequence which flows from the
invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of
retrospectivity would arise;
69.8. The decisions in Kavita Solunke [Kavita Solunke
v.State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 430 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S)
609] and Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn.,
(2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] of two learned
Judges are overruled. Shalini [Shalini v. New English High
School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265]
insofar as it stipulates a requirement of a dishonest intent
for the application of the provision of Section 10 is, with
respect, erroneous and does not reflect the correct position
in law;
69.9. Mens rea is an ingredient of the penal provisions
contained in Section 11. Section 11 is prospective and would
apply in those situations where the act constituting the
offence has taken place after the date of its enforcement;
69.10. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High
Court in Arun [Arun v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine
Bom 4595 : (2015) 1 Mah LJ 457] is manifestly erroneous and
is overruled; and
69.11. Though the power of the Supreme Court under Article
142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power vested in
the court for rendering complete justice and is a power which
is couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction
must have due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such
as Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 holds the field.”
The conclusions arrived at by this Court in Jagdish Balaram
Bahra & Others (supra), are thus clear that the impact of the
legislation which came into effect on 17.10.2001 must have full and
unhindered effect and operation.
Once the claim of the appellant that he belonged to “Halba”
stood negated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, no advantage can
thereafter be extended to the appellant. Any such extension would
be running counter to the legislation as well as the authoritative
pronouncement in Jagdish Balaram Bahra & Others (supra).
9
The civil appeal is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as
to costs.
………………….J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
………………….J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 10,2021.
Comments