Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles Vs. State of Maharashtra

CITATION	Civil 2741-2743
DATE OF JUDGMENT	4th April 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra
BENCH	J.K. Maheshwari, Sanjay Karol

INTRODUCTION

The above case was a writ Petition to the division bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol on the validity of the Caste Certificate of Navneet Kaur, an MP from Amravati Constituteny. The case challenged the Maharashtra High Court Order, which questioned the validity of the Mochi Caste claim made by Navneet Kaur on the argument that her documents for obtaining the caste certificate were forged. The High Court of Maharashtra also directed her to pay Rs2,00,000 in fines. The Maharashtra High Court also questioned the validity of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and tried to overstep using Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court, for this overstepping, used a Writ of Certiorari, which needs to be used frugally and in exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the High Court and granted the Caste Certificate of Appellant as valid. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, also said that the order given by the Scrutiny Committee was to be valid.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. The appellant used the caste Certificate to contest Amravati in the 2019 General Elections, which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, claiming that she was of the Mochi Caste.
2. The case submitted before the Supreme Court sought to stay the order of the High Court of Maharashtra dated 6 April 2021.
3. The High Court of Maharashtra ruled that her certificate was forged and asked her to pay Rs 2,00,000 in fines.
4. The High Court of Maharashtra used the Writ of Ceritori to exercise the powers conferred in Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
5. The case has a long history, as many have complained about the validity of the Caster Certificate of the Appellant.

ISSUES RAISED 

1. Was documents submitted to the Scrutiny Committee by Appellant were forged?
2. Was Caste submitted by the Appellant even recognized?

 CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. The appellant raised doubts about the High Court of Maharashtra Judgement nullifying the   Caste Certificate of Apellantt.
2. The appellant argued that the scrutiny committee proved that the Caste Certificate was genuine and that the High Court mischaracterized its report.
3. They also raised the argument that the scrutiny Committee followed due process according to ‘Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De­Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,2000’,
4. They also said through their senior counsel that an inquiry by the High Court in the case was not needed as the Scrutiny Committee is a Quasi-Judicial authority figure according to the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De­Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,2000.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent that the documents submitted to the Scrutiny Committee by the Appellant were forged and fabricated
2. They also argued that the caste the appellant mentioned is not recognized according to the Schedule Caste Order 1950 for Maharashtra state Issued by the Indian President.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India quashed the High Court of Maharashtra order declaring that the Caste Certificate submitted by the Appellant was invalid. In its judgment, the Supreme Court said that her certificate is valid.  The Judgement also noted that she was not committing a crime contesting from the Scheduled Caste Constituency of Amravati in the 2019 General Elections. The judgment also called for more streamlining of the process of obtaining these certificates so that forgery doesn’t happen according to Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

The judgment used a reference from the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, rules 13, 14, and 17, which stated the rights and authorities of the Scrutiny Committee, which granted the Appellant Certificate as valid and genuine. The judgment also quoted previous judgments, such as Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (1994) and Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims (2012).

ANALYSIS

The respondent has argued the above case as the Appellant Caste Certificate was forged, which is a long-term issue in the validity of these certificates. The court, in this case, called for the streamlining of the obtaining of genuine caste certificates quoting Article-142 of the Constitution of India. This can curb this long-term issue and allow for more transparency in these certificate procedures. 

The respondent argued that the caste Mochi was not recognized under the President Schedule Caste Order 1950 for Maharashtra state, so the certificate was invalid. But the Supreme Court, while quashing this argument, said that the Scrutiny Committee, which verified the Certificate and documentation submitted by the Appellant, which was verified in length and reported by the Vigilance Cell of Maharashtra, said that the certificate was valid. Her caste was mentioned in the other acts of the state.

The case also looked at whether the High Court has the power to overturn the order of the Scrutiny Committee. According to Constitution Article-226, the High Court was justified in giving the order, but it cannot overstep the power or functioning of the Scrutiny Committee.

CONCLUSION

The above case shows the need to streamline the process of obtaining a caste certificate, as mentioned in Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. This requires further arguments and judgments, which can be a precedent. The judgment acts as a seeking validity of a person’s rights to live in a caste and contest from a reserved constituency. The case also challenges the notion that the High Court has the power to over-step the orders of the quasi-judicial authority like the scrutiny Committee.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83481480

https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100079240

https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/supreme-court-restores-validity-navneet-kaur-rana-caste-certificate

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-caste-certificate-cancel-amravati-mp-navneet-kaur-rana-9250664

Mibin Mathew Mammen, a student at University College Dublin, wrote the article. Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.