Holding

The notification was valid, but the caste certificates issued between 30 July 2011 and 31 August 2012 without proper vigilance verification must be quashed and a fresh verification exercise under the 2012 Rules ordered within six months.

Summary

The case concerned the validity of caste certificates issued under a 30 July 2011 notification that created district‑level Caste Scrutiny Committees to verify certificates for local body elections. The High Court had quashed the notification, directing recovery and destruction of the certificates, but the order was stayed. The Supreme Court examined whether the notification, issued under s.6(1) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, complied with the earlier Kumari Madhuri Patil directions requiring mandatory vigilance verification. It held that while the notification was within the statutory power, the certificates issued during the interregnum (30 July 2011‑31 August 2012) were not properly verified, as the Vigilance Cell’s input was obtained only selectively. Consequently, those certificates were quashed and the Court directed a fresh verification exercise under the 2012 Rules within six months, with the existing certificates remaining valid only until the new verification is completed. The appeals were allowed and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Issues considered

The legality of the 30 July 2011 notification constituting district Caste Scrutiny Committees in view of the Kumari Madhuri Patil directions.
Whether the requirement of mandatory verification by the Vigilance Cell under the Kumari Madhuri Patil judgment applied to the interregnum period.
Whether the High Court's order quashing the notification and directing destruction of certificates can be set aside.
Whether the exercise of power under s.6(1) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, is constitutionally valid.
Whether a fresh verification of the certificates under the 2012 Rules is required and the appropriate time‑frame for it.

Legislation cited

Subjects

caste certificateverificationvigilance celldelegated legislationjudicial legislationreservationscheduled castesscheduled tribesadministrative lawinterregnum periodArticle 32Article 142

Judgment

[2019] 15 S.C.R. 685 685

DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. A
v.
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID
(Civil Appeal No. 2723 of 2015)
OCTOBER 01, 2019 B
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of C
Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000:
Notification dated 30.7.2011 issued by the Social Justice, Special
Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra, in exercise of
powers under s.6(1) of Act of 2000 – In terms of the Notification,
35 district level committees were constituted to verify caste
certificates of candidates who wished to contest the elections to D
local authorities – High Court quashed the said Notification with
direction that for both, the matters of constitution of the Committee
and operation of the Vigilance Cell, the directions in Kumari
Madhuri Patil* case have to be given full effect to – The original
certificates issued in pursuance of Government Resolution of E
30.07.2011 were directed to be recovered from the respective
persons and destroyed forthwith – However, said judgment was
stayed and as a result these certificates, issued under the said
circular, continued to hold the field and the process followed as
per the Act of 2000, read with the Rules of 2003 – On 31.8.2012,
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified F
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 were notified – Once
again, the discretion was left to the Scrutiny Committee to solicit a
report of vigilance inquiry, not making it mandatory – The issue G
pertained to the interregnum period between Notification issued
on 30.07.2011 and Rules notified on 31.08.2012 – Challenge was
to the Caste Validity Certificates granted to the candidates on the
ground that the said certificates were obtained by fraud, with a
prayer for direction to the Election Commission to reject the
H
685
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A nomination papers of such candidates – Held: Requirement of
verification of certificates by the Vigilance Cell was provided to
be mandatory in terms of judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil* –
However, as implemented for the interregnum period in question,
the input from Vigilance Cell was obtained only selectively – Under
the Rules of 2012, the requirement was not made mandatory, but
B
whenever the Scrutiny Committee felt it could solicit a report of
vigilance inquiry and not in all cases – The exercise of issuance
of certificates cannot be a casual one – The Scrutiny Committee
constituted to issue the validity certificates must thus at the slightest
doubt take the assistance of the Vigilance Cell to ensure that non-
C entitled persons do not get benefit at the cost of entitled persons
– The certificates in question were alleged to have been obtained
without vigilance reports and within a very short period of time –
The exercise carried out in the interregnum period between
30.7.2011 and 31.8.2012 clearly showed that no proper exercise
D was carried out or could have been carried out given the time
frame within which the caste certificates were issued – Thus, the
exercise so undertaken cannot be upheld and has to be quashed
with the direction to carry out the said exercise afresh – It will be
for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to carry out the aforesaid exercise
while notifying the parties concerned through appropriate public
E notices – These directions were to ensure the objectives of the Act
of 2000 i.e. issuance of certificates only to entitled persons,
through a proper exercise, with proper assistance from the Vigilance
Cell – Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
F Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012.
Constitution of India: Arts.141 and 142 – Guidelines/
Directions – Filling up the vaccum – In the absence of legislation
G – Held: The purpose of any judicial legislation is to fill a vacuum
– It does not preclude legislators from enacting law – There is ample
power conferred by Art.32, read with Art.142 of the Constitution
to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Art.141
of the Constitution, by issuing directions to fill the vacuum till such
time as the legislature steps in to cover the gaps, or the executive
H discharges its role – Judicial legislation.
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 687
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID

Administrative Law: Subordinate legislation/delegated A
legislation – Notification dated 30.7.2011 issued by the Social
Justice, Special Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra,
in exercise of powers under s.6(1) of Act of 2000 – Challenged
on the ground that the Notification was not in conformity with
directions contained in Kumari Madhuri Patil* case – Held: A
B
reading of Notification makes it clear that the Caste Scrutiny
Committees were constituted to facilitate verification of Caste
Certificates of the candidates willing to contest for elective post
in any local authority – The composition of the Committee was
made in pursuance of the specific statutory power in terms of s.6(1)
of the Act of 2000 – As far as a delegated legislation or a C
notification issued under statutory powers is concerned, the
challenge can be laid only in terms of well settled principles i.e.
either the rule or notification is contrary to the provisions of the
Act, or contrary to any provision of the Constitution, or brings
about a conflict which is required to be resolved by the Court –
D
The challenge in this case is not based on any of these parameters,
but is simply on the ground that the notification is not in exact
conformity with the directions issued by this Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil case – Such a challenge would not be sustainable
in view of the settled principles of examining such subordinate
legislation/statutory notifications – Thus, once the legislature lays E
down a legislative policy, and confers discretion upon the
administrative agency for the execution of such policy, it is up to
the agency to work out the details within the framework of the
policy – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
F
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Composition of Scrutiny Committee
1.1 The impugned order is predicated on a reasoning, as G
if the judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case, as modified
by the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II case, was engraved in stone, and
it was not open for the legislature to have enacted law at variance
with, or in derogation of the same. The purpose of any judicial
legislation is to fill a vacuum. It does not preclude legislators H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A from enacting law. Judicial activism or judicial legislation
emerged on account of an existence of vacuum. It was opined
that the Supreme Court would not be constrained to fold its
hands in despair and plead its inability to help the citizen who
has come before it for judicial redressal in such a situation. It
has been found by this Court that there is ample power conferred
B
by Article 32, read with Article 142 of the Constitution to make
orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 of
the Constitution, by issuing directions to fill the vacuum till such
time as the legislature steps in to cover the gaps, or the
executive discharges its role. [Paras 24, 25] [706-B-E]
C Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (1994) 6
SCC 241 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 50 ; Kumari Madhuri
Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development,
Thane & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 437 : [1997] 3 SCR
D 1056 ; (Kumari Madhuri Patil-II) – relied on.
1.2 Insofar as the composition of the Scrutiny Committee
is concerned, no doubt the composition of the said Committee
was directed specifically in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case, and
modified by the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II case. The occasion for
modification also arose on account of large number of cases to
E
be dealt with. So long as the procedure made under the
notification or legislation meets the requirement of law, it cannot
be said that the Committee has to be only as per the directions
of this Court. Post the Rules of 2012 being notified, there is
really no problem. It is not in doubt that the power to issue the
F Notification dated 30.7.2011 did exist, in terms of Section 6(1)
of the Act of 2000. As far as a delegated legislation or a
notification issued under statutory powers is concerned, the
challenge can be laid only in terms of well settled principles.
Either the rule or notification is contrary to the provisions of
the Act, or contrary to any provision of the Constitution, or brings
G about a conflict which is required to be resolved by the Court.
The challenge in this case is not based on any of these
parameters, but is simply on the ground that the notification is
not in exact conformity with the directions issued by this Court
in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case. Such a challenge would not
H be sustainable in view of the settled principles of examining such
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 689
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID

subordinate legislation/statutory notifications. [Para 26] [707-F- A
G; 708-A-D]
2.1 The second part of the challenge relates to the
requirement of verification of the certificates by the Vigilance
Cell. This was provided to be mandatory, in terms of the
judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case. The enormity of the B
problems faced by the High Court, through multifarious petitions
arising qua the unverified issuance of such certificates, possibly
persuaded the High Court to lay down stricter norms in this
behalf. However, as implemented for the interregnum period in
question, the input from the Vigilance Cell was obtained only
selectively. Under the Rules of 2012 also, the requirement is C
not mandatory, but wherever the Scrutiny Committee feels it
“may” solicit a report of vigilance inquiry. The exercise of
issuance of the certificates cannot be a casual one. The Scrutiny
Committee constituted to issue the validity certificates must,
thus, at the slightest doubt take the assistance of the Vigilance D
Cell to ensure that non-entitled persons do not get benefitted
at the cost of entitled persons. This is a process which will be
so followed under the Rules of 2012. [Para 27] [708-E-G; 709-
A-B]
2.2 The matter, however, cannot rest at this because the
E
existence of power and its exercise are two different aspects.
The view adopted by the High Court, appears to have been in
the context of the manner of exercise carried out by the Scrutiny
Committee in the given situation, and the casual manner in which
the assistance of Vigilance Cell was sought (or rather not
sought). On those aspects, the view of the High Court is correct. F
During the interregnum period, between 30.7.2011 (when the
Notification was issued) and 31.8.2012 (when the Rules of 2012
were notified) no proper exercise could have been carried out,
or was carried out given the time frame within which the caste
certificates were issued. The objective was clear, i.e., to
G
somehow facilitate as many people as possible, as soon as
possible, to contest the elections. The troublesome aspect is
that the validity certificates are not only valid for that election,
but also for subsequent elections. They are not only valid for
educational purposes (except for some cases so restricted), but
also for all other purposes. These validity certificates can H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A possibly become the basis for issuance of further certificates to
the legal heirs. Thus, the exercise so undertaken cannot be
upheld and has to be quashed with the direction to carry out the
aforesaid exercise afresh. [Paras 28, 29] [709-C-F]
3. The fresh exercise has to be undertaken within a period
B of six months i.e., on or before 31.3.2020. Till this exercise is
completed, the existing certificates issued for the interregnum
period would hold good. The exercise would have to be
undertaken in respect of all the certificates, except those cases
where the validity certificate was issued after verification by the
Vigilance Cell. In view of the case where the Vigilance Cell
C opined otherwise and yet a caste validity certificate has been
issued, the exercise may be carried out afresh. Thus, wherever
there is an adverse report of the Vigilance Cell and yet caste
validity certificate has been issued the exercise has to be carried
out afresh. Those, whose caste certificates were rejected by the
D Caste Scrutiny Committee, without any Vigilance Inquiry, may
be given the right to appeal against such rejection, as per Rule
7 of the 2012 Rules. [Para 31] [710-A-C]
Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC
333 : [2011] 15 SCR 1092 ; Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 161 : [1984]
E
2 SCR 67 ; Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595 ;
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 :
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 ; The Director of Tribal
Welfare, Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri & Anr. (1995)
F 4 SCC 32 : [1995] 3 SCR 430 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 50 relied on Para 2
[1997] 3 SCR 1056 relied on Para 4
G [2011] 15 SCR 1092 relied on Para 11
[1984] 2 SCR 67 relied on Para 25
[1997[ 6 Suppl. SCR 595 relied on Para 25
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 relied on Para 25
H [1995] 3 SCR 430 relied on Para 25
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 691
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2723 A
of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 853 of 2012.
With
B
Civil Appeal Nos. 2727, 2728, 2729, 2730-2731, 2732, 2734 of
2015.
Vinay Navare, B. H. Marlapalle, Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Jitendra
Mohan Sharma, Sr. Advs., Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Nishant R.
Katneshwarkar, Anoop Kandari, Pravin Satale, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi,
C
Aaditya A. Pande, K. N. Rai, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Ankolekar Gurudatta, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Sudhanshu S.
Choudhari, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Zaid Ali Subzposh, Tamim Qadri,
Saeed Qadri, Ms. Udita Singh, Shirish K. Deshpande, Rucha Pravin
Mandlik, Mohit Gautam, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Ms. Tanvi Kakar, D
Ansh Pandey, Jhavhar Singh, Sandeep Singh, Ajit Sharma, Pranshu
Kaushal, Anil Kumar, Kunal Cheema, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha,
Ms. Aditi Parkhi, Rahul Chitnis, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Satyajit A.
Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Shobit Dwivedi, G. S. Gerwal, Hitesh
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Talwar, Naresh Kumar, C. S. N.
Mohan Rao, R. V. Kameshwaran, Gagan Gupta, Uday B. Dube, E
Bhargava V. Desai, Vishwajit Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The freedom at midnight was followed by the framing of the F
Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India (for short ‘the
Constitution’) took special care, given the social and economic scenario
of our country, to provide for certain special benefits and privileges for
persons from the under-privileged communities, i.e., the Scheduled
Castes (for short ‘SCs’) and the Scheduled Tribes (for short ‘STs’).
G
Thus, while prohibiting discrimination on grounds inter alia of race and
caste, under Article 15 of the Constitution, while providing for equality
of opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16 of the
Constitution, an enabling provision was made for providing reservation
to people of these categories. In fact, Article 17, abolishing
untouchability, was one more provision in this direction. H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A 2. In the implementation of the aforesaid objectives, it became
necessary to issue caste certificates for obtaining employment and
admission to educational institutions. Unfortunately, this gave rise to vast
area of malpractice as non-entitled persons managed to obtain such
certificates for availing the benefits. This endemic problem forms the
basis for the jurisprudential discussion in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr.
B v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors1(Kumari
Madhuri Patil).
3. The facts in Kumari Madhuri Patil 2 case itself are an
illustration of this problem. The appellant before the Court was seeking
a Caste Certificate on the basis of a Caste Certificate obtained by her
C sister, who was claiming on the basis of their father having obtained
caste certificate, certifying him to be of ‘Hindu Koli’ caste. On
investigation, the caste claims were found to be wrong and the
certificates issued to the appellant therein and her sister were cancelled.
This Court in the Kumari Madhuri Patil3 case, while discussing the
D various provisions of the Constitution, emphasised that the State was
enjoined under our constitutional scheme to provide facilities and
opportunities to the SCs and STs for education and employment, so as
to result in economic improvement, resulting in excellence, equality of
status and the right to live in dignity. Thus, any admission wrongly gained,
or employment wrongly obtained, on the basis of a false social status
E certificate automatically has the effect of depriving a genuine person
for whose benefit the rights have been conferred under the Constitution.
Simultaneously, in view of the reservation, a General Category candidate
loses the seat to an ineligible candidate, who really does not belong to
the SC/ST community. No proper procedure or legislation provided for
the checks and balances in issuance of these caste certificates and,
F
thus, in the Kumari Madhuri Patil4 case, it was deemed necessary
to issue directions to streamline the procedure for issuance of the social
status certificates. There were fifteen (15) directions issued, but the
two directions, which are relevant for the controversy raised in the
present appeals, are as under:
G “4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of
three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any
1
(1994) 6 SCC 241
2
(supra)
3
(supra)
4
H (supra)
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 693
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

officer higher in rank of the Director of the department A
concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/
Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the
case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate
knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status
certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research
B
Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal
communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting
of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and
such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social
C
status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of
residence and original place from which the candidate hails and
usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the
place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer
should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social
status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the D
case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth
registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian
or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other
persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate
and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all
E
particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the
Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes
or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.”
F
4. The objective of issuing all these directions is enunciated in
para 14 of this judgment, which reads as under:
“14. Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the
undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State
on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false
social status or further continuance therein, every State G
concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the
constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement
of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward
classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous
persons.” H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A It appears that these directions from the date of their issuance,
on 2.9.1994 apparently seem to have worked well. The State of
Maharashtra sought a review of this order, limited to the aspect of
modification in the composition of the Scrutiny Committee, on account
of certain administrative exigencies. This request was acceded to in
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Com mr., Tribal
B Development, Thane & Ors. 5 (Kumari Madhuri Patil-II) in the
following terms:
“3. As regards prayer (b) read with direction No. (iv) of the
Order of this Court, we too appreciate the inconvenience caused
due to vast area of the State. Therefore, instead of one committee
C of three officers, there will be three Scheduled Tribe/Caste
Scrutiny Committees comprising of five members with quorum
of three members, as suggested in para 4 of the directions, to
take a decision. At Pune, Nasik and Nagpur, six Caste Scrutiny
Committees for SCs, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other
D Backward Classes and the Special Backward Category in
existence at Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, Amravati and
Nagpur would continue to scrutinise the certificates issued by
the respective officers and take a decision in that behalf. In this
regard, it is also suggested by Shri Dholakia, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant, that in case any certificate has been
E wrongfully refused by the certificate issuing authority, the
aforestated Committees also would go into the question and
decide in that behalf, whether refusal was wrongful and in case
it finds that the refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to direct
the authority to grant the certificate.
F 4. With regard to prayer (c) also, we feel that the Caste Scrutiny
Committees for Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports
Department should comprise of Additional Commissioner
(Revenue) — Chairman of the Revenue Division concerned;
Divisional Social Welfare Officer-Member; and Research Officer
as a Welfare Officer-Member-Secretary to function in that
G behalf.”
5. It appears that with the passage of time, and on examining
the matter in issue, the State of Maharashtra resolved to place before
the Assembly, a legislative enactment to cover aspects beyond education
5
H (1997) 5 SCC 437
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 695
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

and employment, for different categories of SCs, STs and Backward A
Classes. The law was so enacted vide 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
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2000’), which was brought into
B
force with effect from 18.10.2001. The Preamble of this Act reads as
under:
“An act to provide for the regulation of the issuance and
verification of the Caste Certificates to the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
C
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward classes and
Special Backward Category and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the regulation of the
issuance and verification of the Caste Certificates to the persons D
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto;”
6. The Act of 2000 provided for the constitution of a Scrutiny E
Committee, while first defining Scrutiny Committee under Section 2(k)
of the ‘Definitions’ clause and then providing for the constitution of that
Committee under Section 6 of the Act of 2000. The said Sections read
as under:
“2. Definitions. F
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
…. …. …. …. …. ….
(k) “Scrutiny Committee” means the Committee or committees
constituted under sub-section (1) of section 6 for the Scheduled G
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward
Category for verification of the Caste Certificate and to perform
the function of Scrutiny Committee under this Act;”
“6. Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee. H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A (1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the
Official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s)
for verification of Caste Certificates issued by the
Competent Authorities under sub-section (1) of section
4 specifying in the said notification the functions and the
area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committee
B
or Committees.
(2) After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the
Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing of
the benefits or concessions provided to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
C Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned
in section 3 may make an application, well in time, in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed,
to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification
D of such Caste Certificate and issue of a validity
certificate.
(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State
Government, local authority, public sector undertakings,
educational institutions, Co-operative Societies or any
E other Government aided institutions shall, make an
application in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the
verification of the Caste Certificate and issue of a
validity certificate, in case a person selected for an
appointment with the Government, local authority, public
F sector undertakings, educational institutions, co-operative
societies or any other Government aided institutions who
has not obtain such certificate.
(4) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure for
verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the
G time limit for verification and grant of validity certificate,
as prescribed.”
7. It may, thus, be noticed that the Act, in the context of the
judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil6 case, neither specified the
6
H (supra)
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 697
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

exact composition of the Scrutiny Committee, nor incorporated the A
aspect of the Vigilance Committee.
8. The Act of 2000 having come into force, the Scrutiny
Committee continued as constituted under the Kumari Madhuri Patil7
case, and it was assisted by a Vigilance Cell, once again, constituted in
terms of the said judgment. B
9. In the year 2003, while exercising powers under Section 18(1)
of the Act of 2000, empowering making of Rules, the State Government
brought into force, The Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Rules of 2003’), with effect from 4.6.2003. These C
Rules, as is apparent from their description, were restrictive in
application, to the ST community. These Rules further did not lay down
any specifications for the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee, other
than to provide that there would be a Chairman, a Member Secretary
and any other Member. It is these Rules, legislated as subordinate
legislation, which brought in the Vigilance Cell. The relevant Rules read D
as under:
“10. Constitution of Vigilance Cell.-
The State Government shall constitute a vigilance cell to assist
each Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for E
conducting enquiry which shall consist of,-
(i) A Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police;
(ii) Police Inspector (number of Inspectors depending upon
the number of cases);
F
(iii) Police Constables to assist the Police Inspector;
(iv) Research Officer.
The police personnel shall investigate into the social status claims
by conducting school and home inquiries and other enquiry as
per the reference made by the Scrutiny Committee under sub- G
rule (2) of rule 12.”
…. …. …. …. …. ….
“12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee.
7
(supra) H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A (1) On receipt of the application, the Scrutiny Committee
or a person authorized by it shall scrutinize the
application, verify the information and documents
furnished by the applicant, and shall acknowledge the
receipt of the application. The Member Secretary shall
B register the application, received for verification, in the
register prescribed by the Chairman.
(2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the
documentary evidence produced by the applicant the
Scrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to the
C Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other
enquiry.
(3) The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local place of
residence and original place from which the applicant
hails and usually resides, or in case of migration, to the
town or city or place from which he originally hailed
D
from.
(4) The Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect
all the facts about the social status claimed by the
applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may
be.
E
(5) The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or
guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification
of their Tribe, of the applicant.
(6) After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall
F submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in
turn scrutinize the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell.
(7) In case the report of Vigilance Cell is in favour of the
applicant, and if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that
the claim of the applicant is genuine and true, the
G Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate.
The validity certificate shall be issued in Form G.
(8) If the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the Vigilance
Cell report and other documents available, is not satisfied
about the claim of the applicant, the Committee shall
H issue a show cause notice to the applicant and also
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 699
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

serve a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer by A
registered post with acknowledgement due. A copy shall
also be sent to the Head of the Department concerned,
if necessary. The notice shall indicate that the
representation or reply, if any, should be made within
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice and
B
in any case not more than thirty days from the date of
receipt of the notice. In case the applicant requests for
adjournment or extension of the time-limit, reasonable
time, may be granted.
(9) (a) After personal hearing if the Scrutiny Committee
is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the claim, C
Validity Certificate shall be issued in Form G.
(b) After personal hearing, if the Scrutiny Committee
is not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim
and correctness of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate,
it shall pass an order of cancellation and of D
confiscation of the Certificate and communicate the
same to the Competent Authority for taking
necessary entries in the register and for further
necessary action. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
shall then be stamped as “cancelled and E
confiscated.””
A reading of the aforesaid Rules shows that the role of the
Vigilance Cell was restricted as compared to the role envisaged under
the Kumari Madhuri Patil8 case, inasmuch as the assistance to be
provided to the Scrutiny Committee was not in every case, but only if F
the Scrutiny Committee was not satisfied with the documentary
evidence produced by the applicant.
10. It appears that though this was restrictive, only to the STs,
practically speaking, the Committee as constituted under Kumari
Madhuri Patil9 continued and verification by the Vigilance Cell was G
done as per the aforesaid Rules, even though it was so confined to the
ST category. This practice apparently continued without protest or any
further clarification from this Court. On seeking clarification in this
8
(supra)
9
(supra) H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A behalf, we were informed that the Rules of 2003 were so followed on
the principle of application of an ‘analogous’ principle.
11. We may take note of another development, i.e., a challenge
that was laid to the constitutional validity of the guidelines in Kumari
Madhuri Patil10 case, which was referred to the Constitution Bench
B and these directions were upheld in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham &
Ors.11 The Constitution Bench opined that the directions issued were
intrinsic for the actual realization of the fundamental rights of the
Backward Classes of citizens. However, what is relevant to note is
that it was specifically opined that these directions would hold field so
long as the State Governments did not come up with appropriate
C legislations to substitute the norms laid down in the Kumari Madhuri
Patil case. It was also opined that enquiry by the Vigilance Cell was
to be considered to be a core requirement for ascertainment of the
veracity of the caste certificate. After discussing the aspect of judicial
activism and judicial legislation coupled with judicial restraint, it was
D opined as under:
“22. Therefore, we are of the view, that Directions 1 to 15 issued
in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution,
are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in
the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine
E Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the
benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out.
By issuing such directions, this Court was not taking over the
functions of the legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till
the legislature chose to make an appropriate law.”

F 12. The Act of 2000, having a wider compass qua all the
certificates to be issued, it appears that there was some difficulty
envisaged almost on the anvil of the local Self-Government elections,
to be held in the year 2011. The controversy in issue, thus, begins with
the issuance of a notification dated 30.7.2011, by the Social Justice,
Special Assistance Department of the State of Maharashtra, exercising
G powers conferred under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2000. The provision
reads as under:
“6. Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee.
10
(supra)
11
H (2012) 1 SCC 333
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 701
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

(1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the Official A
Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for verification of
Caste Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under sub-
section (1) of section 4 specifying in the said notification the
functions and the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny
Committee or Committees…”
B
13. It is the case of the State Government that with thousands
of candidates seeking to contest the elections, an infrastructural boost
was required to meet the deluge of applications for the issuance of caste
certificates sought for contesting the elections. In terms of this
Notification, thirty-five district level committees were constituted to
verify caste certificates of candidates who wished to contest the C
elections to local authorities. The Chairman of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee was specified as the District Collector or the Additional
District Collector (IAS), as against the earlier provision of Additional
Commissioner (Revenue), under the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II12 case.
The relevant portion of the said Notification is reproduced as under: D
“And whereas the Government of Maharashtra has now decided
to constitute District wise Caste Scrutiny Committees to appoint
District Collector or Additional District Collector (I.A.S.) as the
Chairperson of the said Scrutiny Committees for the purpose of
verification of Caste Certificate of the candidates who (sic.)13
E
willing to contest for elective post in any local authority.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
De-Notified Castes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation
of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act 2000 (Mah. F
XXIII of 2001), the Government of Maharashtra hereby constitute
Thirty-five District Caste Scrutiny Committees as specified in the
Schedule appended hereto, for verification of Caste Certificates
of the candidates who (sic) willing to contest for elective post in
any local authority, issued by the Competent Authorities under G
the sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act.”
A reading of the extract of the aforesaid notification, thus, makes
it clear that the objective was to facilitate issuance of caste certificates
12
(supra)
13
To be read as who are willing to contest… H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A for “…verification of Caste Certificate of the candidates who (sic)
willing to contest for elective post in any local authority…”
14. The story that unfolded in this exercise is best illustrated by
a chart produced in the impugned judgment, which was the result of
compliance of directions issued in that matter. The chart was made
B division-wise, with each district specified. It is not necessary to
reproduce the chart in its entirety, but it suffices for our purpose to
reproduce headings and the final figures for the whole of Maharashtra:
PRAPATRA – B
NECESSARY INFORMATION RELATING TO WRIT PETITION NO.853/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT, BOMBAY.

C Sr.No Nam Total Validity Validity Number Number The The The
. e of number of Certific certificate of of validity validity validity
the Validity ates s not candidat validity certifica certifica certifica
Com Certificate verified verified es certifica tes in tes in tes in
mitte s issued by the by the contesti tes which which which
e/Dis relating to Vigilan Vigilance ng the stamped decision decision decision
trict election ce Cell Cell election only for is given is given is given
to election in one in two in three
whom purpose day. days or more
D validity days.
certifica
tes are
issued
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

.... .... .... .... .... ....
Total 36929 1427 35505 7664 4359 388 290 36251
E Maharashtra

15. The aforesaid would, thus, illustrate that there were some
certificates stamped only for election purposes, while others were not.
The manner of verification of these certificates would be evident from
F the speed with which they were issued, making it difficult to accept
that there could have been any proper verification. Columns 8 & 9 itself
show how the exercise was undertaken. The lesser said the better about
this exercise!
16. It is in the context of these facts that the High Court was
G greatly troubled while exercising the writ jurisdiction, where the prayer
made by the petitioners, inter alia, was qua caste certificates issued
and not issued. By an amendment, a writ was specifically sought seeking
the quashing and setting aside of the aforesaid Government Resolution
dated 30.7.2011. In these proceedings, through an elaborate judgment
dated 4.5.2012, this Resolution was quashed, with a direction that both,
H the matters of constitution of the Committee and the operation of the
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 703
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

Vigilance Cell (being mandatory), the directions in Kumari Madhuri A
Patil14 case have to be given full effect to. The original certificates
issued in pursuance of the Government Resolution of 30.7.2011 were
directed to be recovered from the respective persons and destroyed
forthwith.
17. The aforesaid judgment was assailed in this batch of appeals B
before us, and the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed vide
order dated 30.7.2012. The result has been that these certificates, issued
under the aforesaid circular, have continued to hold the field and the
process followed has been as per the Act of 2000, read with the Rules
of 2003. C
18. The next important development has been the enactment of
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 Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2012’), D
which were notified on 31.8.2012. These Rules are comprehensive,
unlike the Rules of 2003. The constitution of the Scrutiny Committee
has been provided for in Rule 11, while the constitution of the Vigilance
Cell is provided in Rule 12 of the Rules of 2012, and the same read as
under: E
“11. Constitution of Scrutiny Committee. – The Scrutiny
Committee shall consist of the following members, namely:-
(a) Divisional Commissioner or Additional Divisional Chairman
Commissioner (Revenue) or Collector or Additional
Collector (I.A.S.) or Additional Collector (Selection F
Grade) or Joint Secretary of the State Government or
any officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to
State Government

(b) Deputy Commissioner (Social Welfare) or Regional Member
Deputy Commissioner (Social Welfare) or Divisional G
Social Welfare Officer

(c) Research Officer or Assistant Commissioner (Social Member-Secretary
Welfare) or Special District Social Welfare Officer

14
(supra) H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A 12. Constitution of Vigilance Cell. – (1) There shall be a Vigilance
Cell to assist each Scrutiny Committee in conducting the field
inquiry under rule 17. The Vigilance Cell shall consist of, -
(a) Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent;
(b) Police Inspectors;
B
(c) Police Constables to assist the Police Inspectors.
(2) Jurisdiction of the Vigilance Cell shall be subject to territorial
jurisdiction of concerned Scrutiny Committee, for all purposes,
including domestic inquiry and verification of authenticity of
C documents:
Provided that, in appropriate case, if Scrutiny Committee feels,
it may solicit a report of Vigilance Inquiry, from any other
concerned Scrutiny Committee.
(3) Vigilance Cell shall work under the control and supervision
D of concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee.”
19. It is relevant to note that, once again, the discretion has been
left to the Scrutiny Committee to solicit a report of vigilance inquiry,
not making it mandatory. Thus, once these Rules were enacted, the
process of verification and issuance of caste certificates has proceeded
E under these Rules.
20. In the course of hearing these appeals, what undisputedly
emerged was that the window of period with which we are concerned
is between the Notification being issued on 30.7.2011 and the Rules
being notified on 31.8.2012. The Rules have not been challenged by
F any one, and hold the field. Thus, we are not really required to go into
what had happened before the Notification came in, or after the Rules
came in. We may also note that the challenge before us is in respect
of only the certificates issued for the purposes of local self-body
elections, as nobody from any other category has approached the Court.
Thus, as to whether the Rules of 2003, applicable to the ST category,
G should have been applied to all the categories on an ‘analogous’
principle, does not require our adjudication. Neither the certificates
issued post the notification of the Rules of 2012 require our adjudication.
It is only the interregnum period that we are concerned with. However,
to deal with this interim period, certain broader principles have to be
H discussed.
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 705
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

21. An aspect noticed in the impugned order, in para 22, is the A
order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, opining in Writ
Petition No.2527/2009, vide judgment dated 20.1.2010, that the
appointment of the Additional Collector as a Chairman of the Scrutiny
Committee is not in accordance with law, and that this matter was the
subject matter of appeal before this Court in Special Leave Petition B
No.6003/2010, which had been admitted on 5.7.2011. In this behalf, we
have been informed that when the appeal was taken up for hearing,
the private respondents who had filed the petition withdrew the challenge
to the validity of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and wanted to move
an application before the High Court for disposal of the writ petition
on merits. Thus, the appeal was disposed of as infructuous. The C
purpose of this is only to note that no opinion has been rendered in that
behalf.
22. We may also note that there were three kinds of writ petitions
filed before the High Court. The first set of writ petitioners were those D
who intended to participate in the ensuing elections of local Government,
even though they did not, at that stage, have a caste validity certificate.
The prayer was for relaxation of the condition to produce the caste
validity certificate at the time of scrutiny, which had been made
mandatory (though that certificate once issued was to remain valid for
all purposes). The second set of writ petitioners were those whose caste E
certificates were invalidated by the Scrutiny Committees, and they
sought to challenge the decision with a direction to the Returning Officer
to allow them to participate in the ensuing elections. The third set of
petitioners were those who challenged the Caste Validity Certificates
granted to the candidates who were party respondents in both petitions, F
on the ground that the said certificates were obtained by fraud, with a
prayer for direction to the Election Commission to reject the nomination
papers of such candidates. The impugned judgment has been rendered
in the context of the third set of petitioners. The certificates in question
were alleged to have been obtained without vigilance reports and within
G
a very short period of time, as would be apparent from the chart
aforesaid.
23. The grievance against the impugned order, however, is not
only confined to the third set of petitioners, but also to some of the second
set of petitioners, as in view of the Scrutiny Committees not being H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A constituted in accordance with the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II15 case,
their contention is that there was no validly constituted Scrutiny
Committee, which could invalidate their caste certificates.
Composition of the Scrutiny Committees
24. The impugned order is predicated on a reasoning, as if the
B
judgment in the Kumari Madhuri Patil16 case, as modified by the
Kumari Madhuri Patil-II17 case, was engraved in stone, and it was
not open for the legislature to have enacted law at variance with, or in
derogation of the same.
25. On the aforesaid aspect, on hearing learned counsel for the
C
parties, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the line of
reasoning adopted by the High Court. The purpose of any judicial
legislation is to fill a vacuum. It does not preclude legislators from
enacting law. Judicial activism or judicial legislation emerged on account
of an existence of vacuum, and it was opined that the Supreme Court
D would not be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its
inability to help the citizen who has come before it for judicial redressal
in such a situation (Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India &
Ors.18). It has been found by this Court that there is ample power
conferred by Article 32, read with Article 142 of the Constitution to
make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 of
E
the Constitution, by issuing directions to fill the vacuum till such time
as the legislature steps in to cover the gaps, or the executive discharges
its role (Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.19). A classic
example of this has been the seminal judgment of Vishaka v State of
Rajasthan20, which formulated effective measures to check the evil
F of sexual harassment of working women at the work place. There
are numerous judicial pronouncements in this behalf, but they need not
detain us further, specifically for the reason that in the very judgment
relied upon in the impugned order, i.e., the Kumari Madhuri Patil21
case, the Constitution Bench, while examining the validity of the
G 15
(supra)
16
(supra)
17
(supra)
18
(1984) 3 SCC 161
19
(1998) 1 SCC 226
20
(1997) 6 SCC 241
21
H (supra)
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 707
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

directions and upholding the same had clearly observed that “by issuing A
such directions, this Court was not taking over the functions of the
legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till the legislature chose to
make an appropriate law.” 22 Needless to observe that these
observations, being of the Constitution Bench, would be binding on us,
and so would it naturally be on the High Court. We may note that while
B
noticing the directions in the Kumari Madhuri Patil23 case, this Court
had expressed a view that it was high time that the Government of
India examine the matter in greater detail, and bring about a uniform
legislation with necessary guidelines and rules (The Director of Tribal
Welfare, Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri & Anr. 24) and observed as
under: C
“8. While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable
principles, it is high time that the Government of India would
have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a
uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules prescribing
penal consequences on persons who flout the Constitution and D
comer (sic.) the benefits reserved for the real tribals etc. etc.,
so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain
unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be
prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective
of rendering socio- economic justice envisaged under Article 46
in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 E
and 39.”
26. If we examine the controversy in the conspectus of the
aforesaid legal position, insofar as the composition of the Scrutiny
Committee is concerned, no doubt the composition of the said
Committee was directed specifically in the Kumari Madhuri Patil25 F
case, and modified by the Kumari Madhuri Patil-II 26 case. The
occasion for modification also arose on account of large number of
cases to be dealt with. So long as the procedure made under the
notification or legislation meets the requirement of law, it cannot be said
that the Committee has to be only as per the directions of this Court. G

22
Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. (supra)
23
(supra)
24
(1995) 4 SCC 32
25
(supra)
26
(supra) H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A We have already noticed that post the Rules of 2012 being notified,
there is really no problem. It is not in doubt that the power to issue the
Notification dated 30.7.2011 did exist, in terms of Section 6(1) of the
Act of 2000. Thus, the composition of the Committee was made in
pursuance of the specific statutory power. It was also to subserve the
larger issue of setting up different committees by decentralizing the
B
process, to meet the requirement of verification of the certificates. As
far as a delegated legislation or a notification issued under statutory
powers is concerned, the challenge can be laid only in terms of well
settled principles. Either the rule or notification is contrary to the
provisions of the Act, or contrary to any provision of the Constitution,
C or brings about a conflict which is required to be resolved by the
Court. 27 The challenge before us is not based on any of these
parameters, but is simply on the ground that the notification is not in
exact conformity with the directions issued by this Court in the Kumari
Madhuri Patil28 case. Such a challenge would not be sustainable in
view of the settled principles of examining such subordinate legislation/
D
statutory notifications. Thus, once the legislature lays down a legislative
policy, and confers discretion upon the administrative agency for the
execution of such policy, it is up to the agency to work out the details
within the framework of the policy.29
Requirement of the Vigilance Cell Report
E
27. The second part of the challenge relates to the requirement
of verification of the certificates by the Vigilance Cell. This was
provided to be mandatory, in terms of the judgment in the Kumari
Madhuri Patil30 case. The enormity of the problems faced by the
High Court, through multifarious petitions arising qua the unverified
F issuance of such certificates, possibly persuaded the High Court to lay
down stricter norms in this behalf. However, as implemented for the
interregnum period in question, the input from the Vigilance Cell was
obtained only selectively. Under the Rules of 2012 also, the requirement
is not mandatory, but wherever the Scrutiny Committee feels it “may”
G solicit a report of vigilance inquiry. We have, however, no hesitation to

27
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India
(UOI) and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515.
28
(supra)
29
Khambhalia Municipality v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 SC 1048
30
H (supra)
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 709
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

emphasise the importance of proper verification of such certificates to A
be issued, and the exercise of issuance of the certificates cannot be a
casual one. The Scrutiny Committee constituted to issue the validity
certificates must, thus, at the slightest doubt take the assistance of the
Vigilance Cell to ensure that non-entitled persons do not get benefitted
at the cost of entitled persons. We have no doubt that this is a process
B
which will be so followed under the Rules of 2012.
28. The matter, however, cannot rest at this because the existence
of power and its exercise are two different aspects. The view adopted
by the High Court, appears to us, to have been in the context of the
manner of exercise carried out by the Scrutiny Committee in the given
situation, and the casual manner in which the assistance of Vigilance C
Cell was sought (or rather not sought). On those aspects, we are in
complete agreement with the view of the High Court. The exercise
carried out in the interregnum period, between 30.7.2011 (when the
Notification was issued) and 31.8.2012 (when the Rules of 2012 were
notified) leaves us, as the High Court, with grave doubt, and we are of D
the view that no proper exercise could have been carried out, or was
carried out given the time frame within which the caste certificates
were issued. The objective was clear, i.e., to somehow facilitate as many
people as possible, as soon as possible, to contest the elections.
29. The troublesome aspect is that the validity certificates are E
not only valid for that election, but also for subsequent elections. They
are not only valid for educational purposes (except for some cases so
restricted), but also for all other purposes. These validity certificates
can possibly become the basis for issuance of further certificates to
the legal heirs. Thus, we have no doubt that the exercise so undertaken
cannot be upheld and has to be quashed with the direction to carry out F
the aforesaid exercise afresh.
30. The further development, by the enactment of the Rules of
2012 is that the said mechanism is now available within the enacted
Rules, itself. Even the contesting respondents could not seriously dispute
that the proper methodology, now, would be for a fresh verification G
exercise to be carried out under the Rules of 2012. Learned counsel
for the State Government could also not seriously dispute this exercise
to be undertaken under the Rules of 2012, but only expressed concerns
about the certificates already having been issued and the complication
which would be created by forthwith withdrawal of those certificates. H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A 31. We do appreciate the problem aforesaid and are, thus, of the
view that the fresh exercise has to be undertaken within a period of
six (6) months from today, i.e., on or before 31.3.2020. Till this exercise
is completed, the existing certificates issued for the interregnum period
would hold good. The exercise would have to be undertaken in respect
of all the certificates, except those cases where the validity certificate
B
was issued after verification by the Vigilance Cell. We may, however,
hasten to add that, in view of the case pointed out to us, where the
Vigilance Cell opined otherwise and yet a caste validity certificate has
been issued, the exercise may be carried out afresh. Thus, wherever
there is an adverse report of the Vigilance Cell and yet caste validity
C certificate has been issued the exercise has to be carried out afresh. It
may be added that those, whose caste certificates were rejected by
the Caste Scrutiny Committee, without any Vigilance Inquiry, may be
given the right to appeal against such rejection, as per Rule 7 of the
2012 Rules.
D 32. We may note that one of the grievances raised by the affected
private respondents before us is that though they were impleaded as
respondents, no notice was every issued and their matter was tagged
with the main matter and decided, in their absence. Thus, they had no
opportunity to put forth their point of view. In the same line, learned
counsel for the State of Maharashtra sought to place before us the
E problem where the directions now being issued to be carried out are
with respect to parties who are not before us and may be affected by
this exercise.
33. We are conscious of the aforesaid fact. However, it is
impractical to have all the affected parties before us. Different groups
F in representative capacities are before us. In terms of the impugned
order, all the original certificates issued by the specially constituted
Scrutiny Committees under the Government Resolution dated 30.7.2011
were to be recovered from the respective persons and were to be
destroyed forthwith for which three months time was granted. We have,
G in fact while setting aside the impugned order on the question of law,
directed only re-verification of the certificates as to whether they are
in accordance with law on account of the doubts cast over them, as
per what we have set out aforesaid. The stand of the aggrieved parties
by the impugned judgment was, in fact, represented by the appellant
before us. Moreover, at the time of the fresh exercise of the validity
H certificate being issued, naturally the persons who have been issued
DIST. COLLECTOR SATARA & ANR. v. 711
MANGESH NIVRUTTI KASHID [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

these certificates would be issued notice. In our view that would suffice A
and the aforesaid directions are also necessary to do complete justice
inter se the parties, for which we have the benefit of Article 142 of
the Constitution. It will be for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to carry
out the aforesaid exercise, while notifying the parties concerned, through
appropriate public notices in this behalf. Directions we have now issued
B
would ensure the objectives of the Act of 2000, i.e., issuance of
certificates only to entitled persons, through a proper exercise, with
proper assistance from the Vigilance Cell.
34. We end with the hope that the aforesaid exercise would sub-
serve the very purpose for bringing the Act of 2000 into force, and
confer benefits only on the entitled persons, while weeding out the non- C
entitled persons.
35. The appeals are accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
D
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H