21 Feb 2024 3:52 PM GMT
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 21), while hearing the challenge against the setting aside of MP Navneet Kaur Rana's cast certificate, asked the counsel for the petitioner to examine what would be the procedure laid down by law when a certificate which is granted after verification is to be cancelled.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol was hearing Navneet Kaur Rana's challenge to the 2021 Bombay High Court order which cancelled Rana's caste certificate and the Caste Scrutiny Committee's (CSC) 2017 order validating her claim of belonging to the 'Mochi' Schedule Caste. She had won the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from the Amravati(Maharashtra) seat reserved for SC candidates.
The bench verbally remarked, “ Section 7 and 8 if you see, the burden to prove is caste upon the applicant, so he discharges that burden once he satisfies the scrutiny committee then, when the certificate is issued and if it found to be false …but what is the procedure once it has been granted? Secondly, on whom would the presumption lie? the burden and onus on proving the falsity would be upon whom?”
The Court noted the following aspects have to be taken into consideration in the present case : (1) the nature of the caste certificate; (2) the description in the certificate (whether it mentions mochi/chamaar etc); (3) whether the caste certification in the first instance is within the purview of the Scrutiny Committee and (4) the validity of the certificate; (5) documents to support the claim of validation; (6) objects which the opposition filed; (7) the opinion of the caste certificate scrutiny committee and reasons for justification it gives; (8) approach taken by High Court in dealing with the issue
Senior Advocate Mr Dhruv Mehta appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that while the caste certificate of the petitioner was of ' recent vintage' but the documents being relied upon to prove the certificate's authenticity were pre-independence.
It was further submitted that the Court in Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development had laid down a detailed procedure to be followed for verification of caste certificate in the absence of any proper legislation on the same.Based on the judgment, in 2000, the State of Maharashtra enacted 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 (Act of 2000). The Act of 2000 was effected on October 18, 2001.
As per the Act, S.2(a) defines 'Caste Certificate' as follows -
“The certificate issued by the Competent Authority to an applicant indicating therein the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class or Special Backward Category, as the case may be, to which such applicant belongs;”
Whereas 'Competent Authority' under S.2 (b) is described as “ An officer or authority authorized by the 'Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to issue a Caste Certificate, for such area or for such purposes as may be specified in the said notification and shall include all the Competent Authorities already designated by the Government before the coming into force of this Act, having jurisdiction over the area or place to which the applicant originally belongs, unless specified otherwise;”
S. 3 of the Act lays down the procedure for application for a Caste Certificate and S.4 mandates that a Competent Authority issue Caste Certificate.
Mr Mehta highlighted that S.6 and 8 were of key importance. While Section 6 prescribed the verification process by the Scrutiny Committee, Section 8 bestows the burden of proof upon the claimant's application seeking such verification.
8. Burden of proof. - Where an application is made to the Competent Authority under section 3 for the issue of a Caste Certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category and in any enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority and Scrutiny Committee or the Appellate Authority under this Act or any trial of offence under this Act, the burden of proving that the person belonged to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be on such claimant applicant.
Mr Mehta then drew the attention of the bench to the Rules of 2012 relating to the Said Act. It was highlighted that Rule 11 provided for the Composition of the Scrutiny Committee; Rules 12 & 13 provided the constitution of the Vigilance Cell and the details of the Report which it shall furnish; Rule 14 detailed the procedure for an applicant desiring the verification of Caste Certificate; Rule 17 elaborated upon the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee for the examination of the application.
Justice Karol asked that once the certificate is issued what would be the procedure for cancellation? He further observed:
“ Section 7 and 8 if you see, the burden to prove is caste upon the applicant, so he discharges that burden once he satisfies the scrutiny committee then, when the certificate is issued and if it found to be false …but what is the procedure once it has been granted? Secondly, on whom would the presumption lie? the burden and onus on proving the falsity would be upon whom?”
The senior counsel replied that he would examine this aspect in the next hearing.
The bench will continue the hearing of the remaining arguments tomorrow.
Background
Rana, an independent candidate from Maharashtra's Amravati constituency, was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2019 by defeating then-sitting Shiv Sena MP Anandrao Adsul with backing from the NCP. Her husband, Ravi Rana, is an MLA. However, Rana was said to be drifting towards the BJP since the 2019 election.
The Bombay High Court's Order of cancellation was stayed in 2021 by the Supreme Court.
In the previous hearing, the Complainant (who filed for cancellation) contended that the cast 'mochi' was not recognised as a Schedule Cast.
However, on an earlier occasion, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Amravati MP, had submitted that the terms "Mochi" and "chamaar" are synonymous
Case Details : Navneet Kaur vs The State of Maharashtra | SLP [C] No. 7776/2021