Bombay High Court: While deciding a petition challenging the order of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had validated the caste claim of an individual as belonging to the Kunbi Other Backward Class, and wherein it was contended that the supporting document relied upon was fraudulent, a Division Bench of M. S. Jawalkar and Raj D. Wakode*, JJ., held that the challenge to the document was not sustainable in law and deserved to be rejected, as the caste claim had been proved on the basis of pre-constitutional documentary evidence. The Court, therefore, concluded that the challenge to the order passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (‘Scrutiny Committee’) validating the caste claim towards Kunbi was without merit.
Background:
A caste certificate was issued in December 2020 recognizing the individual as belonging to Kunbi caste, categorized as Other Backward Classes (‘OBC’) in Maharashtra. On the strength of this certificate, she contested elections for Gram Panchayat and was declared elected in January 2021. Subsequently, she was chosen as Sarpanch on a seat reserved for OBCs.
The Tahsildar referred her caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. To substantiate her claim, she submitted genealogical records and documentary evidence of her ancestors. The Police Vigilance Cell, in its report dated 11-04-2022, found the oldest pre-constitutional document submitted by her grandfather to be genuine. Despite this, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated her claim in July 2022, and the Collector disqualified her for six years under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Aggrieved, she approached the Court, which remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee in April 2023, directing reconsideration of her claim based on the documents produced. In compliance, she submitted a document from the Hakka Nondani Register dated 1942 showing her father’s caste as Kunbi. The Police Vigilance Cell verified this document from the Tahsildar’s records and confirmed its authenticity in May 2023. On this basis, the Scrutiny Committee validated her caste claim in June 2023.
However, it was argued that the name of the father was not reflected in the record of rights and therefore the document relied upon was fraudulent. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the order of the Scrutiny Committee was supported by the fact that the Vigilance Cell had duly verified the document and found it genuine.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that in the present case the caste claim had been proved on the basis of documentary evidence which is pre-constitutional. Hence, the submission that the Scrutiny Committee should have rejected the caste claim by conducting the affinity test is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
The Court noted that the petitioner vehemently argued that the name of the father was nowhere reflected in the record of rights and thus the document relied upon was fraudulent.
At the outset, the Court recorded that the document pertaining to the year 1942 had been duly verified by the Police Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee and was found to be genuine. The Court emphasised that there was no reason for the Revenue Officer to give false opinion or fabricate a certified copy of the document, and hence the submission of fraud deserves to be rejected on this count alone.
The Court further noted that the petitioner herself had contended that the records produced were the chronological record of rights showing the names of the owners of agricultural lands year-wise. The Court observed that it was not the case of the Scrutiny Committee that the father of the claimant was the owner of the land. The Court emphasised that the document only pointed out that the owner had given some part of the agricultural on contract basis for cultivation, and it was this entry which showed the caste recorded as Kunbi.
Consequently, the Court held that the challenge raised to the document was not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserved to be rejected. The Court concluded that the challenge to the order dated 02-06-2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee validating the caste claim towards “Kunbi” Other Backward Class was without any merit.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and directed that there would be no order as to cost.
[Mangala v. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4779, decided on 28-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Raj D. Wakode
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: O. A. Ghare, Advocate
For the Respondents: J. Y. Ghurde, Asst. G. P., Tejas Deshpande, Advocate