Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Section 10 makes a provision for withdrawal of the benefits secured by a person on the basis of false Caste Certificate. Sub-section (4) thereof reads thus:

10.(1) ...

(2) ...

(3) ...

(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.

19. An applicant for the issuance of a caste certificate must in his conduct and dealings in that regard display utmost good faith. Section 8 of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 casts the burden on the claimant applicant (i) seeking the issuance of a caste certificate; (ii) in the enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority, Scrutiny Committee or Appellate Authority; and (iii) in a trial of an offence under the Act of establishing that he belongs to the concerned Scheduled Caste or Tribe, De-notified or Nomadic Tribe or Other Backward Class. Undoubtedly, the Competent Authority which issues the caste certificate has to satisfy itself of the genuineness of the claim and follow the procedure prescribed. The Scrutiny Committee to whom a caste certificate is forwarded has to similarly conduct an enquiry in the manner prescribed, involving, as the Supreme Court laid down in Madhuri Patil's case, the Vigilance Cell and a due opportunity of being heard to the candidate. Yet there is an affirmative duty on the applicant for the issuance of a caste certificate to disclose all circumstances within his knowledge which have a bearing on the legitimacy of his claim. A candidate who sets up a claim cannot be heard to say that having asserted that claim, he will leave it to the authorities to ferret out information to the contrary. True enough, there are genuine cases where poverty, ignorance and illiteracy of the members of those communities for whom benefits are reserved and the social prejudice or discrimination practised on a systemic scale may pose serious hurdles in producing material from the remote past. Bona fide cases must evince empathy so that genuine candidates are not excluded. Equally, the candidate must and is bound to make a full disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge by producing relevant documentary and other material which will enable a proper assessment of his claim to be possible. A suppression of fact or a failure to produce documentary material available with the candidate will sustain an inference that there was a deliberateness in his conduct to establish a false caste claim. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize that the question as to whether a caste certificate has been based on a false claim or declaration is a question which has to be decided on the basis of the documentary and other material and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Committee which decides the question cannot be subjected to the impossible ask of probing the inner processes of the mind of the applicant. To expect the Committee to discharge an impossible function like that will defeat the purpose of the legislation. The element of deliberateness implicit in the lodgment of a false claim or declaration is hence to be deduced from the material before the Committee, the conduct of the claimant and the circumstances of the case. When the Court reviewing the decision of the committee under Article 226 considers the case, the order of the Committee must be assessed in its entirety in deciding whether any interference is warranted. The reviewing Court is not an appellate forum. The Court is not a fact finding authority nor does it substitute its own opinion for that of the Committee.
18. In our view, if a claimant fails to substantiate and establish his caste claim because of insufficiency of evidence or lack of knowledge of traits or characteristics of his tribe, he cannot be termed as a person who has obtained and produced a false caste certificate. The phraseology 'false caste certificate' or 'a certificate obtained fraudulently' used in Section 7 of the Act cannot and does not cover bona fide cases where a claimant fails to establish his caste claim. To hold that a person has obtained a 'false caste certificate' or a 'certificate fraudulently', there need to exist an element of mens rea or a guilty mind and only on the establishment of the existence of said element, that a person could be branded as one who has obtained false caste certificate. It is in this sense, that we have observed in proposition "C" above, that a person can be denied the benefit of Government Resolution dated 15-6-1995, if he has procured the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate.
19. Ordinarily the proceedings before the Committee are for adjudication of the caste claim but in some cases, the Committee may prima facie find that the claim is false, on the ground that the certificate itself is forged or that the certificate is obtained fraudulently, etc. then in that situation, the claimant will have to be put on notice in that regard and afforded an opportunity of being heard to explain as to why the Committee should not hold the claimant guilty of producing a false, forged or fabricated certificate. Solely on the ground that the claim is invalidated, the Scrutiny Committee will not be justified in reaching a conclusion that the claimant has obtained a false certificate or he has produced a false caste certificate.