Courts have no power to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste, a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any of the entries mentioned in Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950

In the matter of Shri Anandra Vithoba Adsul vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition no. 3370 of 2018 decided on 08.06.2021 decided by the Bombay High Court.

Facts:
The Petitioner impugned the order passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban, validating the caste claim of Respondent No.3 as “Mochi” – Scheduled Caste and prayed for quashing and setting aside such caste certificate. The Petitioner and Respondent no. 3 both had contested the parliamentary election in the year 2014 from Amravati Constituency, which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste Category. The Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 had presented before the Scrutiny Committee, forged birth and education documents in order to have its caste claim verified.
As per the impugned order, the Respondent No. 2 Committee accepted the caste claim of Respondent No. 3 only on two documents i.e. bonafide certificate issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce in which the caste of Respondent No. 3 was mentioned as “Sikh Chamar” and Rent Agreement which corroborates proof of residence appearing under the Khalsa College Register, which also mentioned address of forefathers of the Respondent No. 3 as Maharashtra.
Apart from challenging the authenticity of the documents produced by the Respondent no. 3 before the Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner contended that the Khalsa college admission register relied upon by the Respondent no. 3 herself, mentioned the grandfather of the respondent no. 3 as “sikh chamar” and not “mochi”. Other documents filed by Respondent no. 3 with her pleadings reflects that the predecessors of Respondent no. 3 belong to “ravidasiya mochi” caste. It was submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments, the caste of respondent no.3 was “Ravidasiya Mochi” or “sikh chamar”, the same are not mentioned in the schedule to the presidential order as amended from time to time.

Held:
The Bombay High Court observed that admittedly in this case, no caste validity certificate in favour of the father of the respondent no.3 or any of her relatives was produced before the Scrutiny Committee. Respondent no. 3 sought to substantiate her caste claim on the basis of domicile and education documents of her father and grandfather. The Court noted that when the vigilance cell conducted independent enquiry to verify the authenticity of the said documents, there appeared to be various suspicious tampering or withholding of original record by different issuing authorities at the behest of Respondent no. 3 which reeked of fraud. Furthermore, the Respondent no. 2 committee did not even record any reasons as to why the said objections/observations of the Vigilance Cell in respect of raising serious doubt about the documents was required to be rejected by the respondent no.2 Committee. Further, the Court itself examined the documents and evidence presented before the Committee and reached the conclusion that the documents of Respondent no. 3 were forged and fabricated. Hence, in the absence of proof thereof, it was held that the Scrutiny Committee grossly erred in providing a caste certificate for “mochi” caste to the Respondent no. 3.
During the entire proceedings before the Respondent no. 2 Committee reference to two other caste namely “sikh chamar” and “ravidasiya mochi” also came up. The Court recorded that both the said caste were not mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 for the State of Maharashtra and hence, even if the Respondent no. 3 was taken to belong to such caste, she could not have taken the benefit of reservation in Maharashtra.
The Court further held that the terms ‘Chamar’ and ‘Sikh Chamar’ are not synonymous. The terms ‘Sikh Chamar’ is also not synonymous with the term ‘Mochi’ prescribed under entry 11 to the Schedule II to the Constitution of India (Scheduled Caste), Order 1950. The Court further reiterated the law laid down in a catena of judgments that the entries in the presidential order have to be taken as final and the High Court cannot interpret the entries or look into the evidence to find out and decide that a caste/tribe is a sub-caste or of a scheduled tribe/caste which is included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950.
It was held that the constitution endeavours for social and economic upliftment of the down-trodden population of this country and social equality of status and dignity of person, by providing reservation in services of the State and in education by operation of Articles 15, 16 read with 14 of the Constitution of India. Any person attempting to take benefit provided to reserved categories without falling into such category is playing a fraud on the Constitution.