MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday asked a larger bench to decide whether caste scrutiny committees in Maharashtra can cancel their own orders if a caste validity certificate is found to have been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
The reference was made by justices Manish Pitale and YG Khobragade while hearing petitions by four residents of Jamb village in Nanded district — Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe. They had challenged a May 15, 2025 order of the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar headquarters) cancelling their caste validity certificates for alleged fraud and concealment of information.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar argued that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 gives scrutiny committees no legal power to review or recall their own decisions. He cited earlier high court rulings — Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and Bharat Nagu Garud — which held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio (a legal term meaning its job in that matter is finished) and only the High Court can overturn it under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Countering this, additional government pleaders SP Sonpawale and Saie S Joshi said that certificates obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to stand, even if the 2000 Act is silent on recall powers. They relied on the Rajeshwar Baburao Bone case, in which the High Court and Supreme Court upheld cancellation of a fraudulently obtained caste certificate, stressing that fraud vitiates all legal acts.
The bench noted that different benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue. While unchecked recall powers could unsettle vested rights, the judges said, the inability to correct fraudulent outcomes would undermine the caste verification process. They observed that scrutiny committees, being quasi-judicial bodies with some powers of a civil court, are often better placed than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims.
“It cannot be countenanced,” the court remarked, “that validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications or suppression of material facts cannot be reopened when such fraud is noticed subsequently.”
Citing the need for an authoritative ruling, the bench framed five questions for the larger bench, including:
Whether scrutiny committees under the 2000 Act have the power to recall orders obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
If so, what limits and safeguards should apply to prevent misuse.
Whether such safeguards could include requiring prior leave of the High Court.
And whether earlier rulings in Umbarje and Garud should be revisited on this point.
The matter will now go to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign it to a larger bench.