Author- NIVEDITA CHANDRA, UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW
CASE DETAILS
|
i. Judgement Cause Title
|
J. Chitra v District Collector and Chairman, State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and Ors |
|
ii. Citation |
Civil Appeal No. 5160 of 2010 |
|
iii. Judgment Date |
2 September 2021 |
|
iv. Court |
Supreme Court of India |
|
v. Quorum |
Aniruddha Bose, L. Nageswara Rao |
|
vi. Author of case |
L. Nageswara Rao |
|
vii. Appellant |
J. Chitra |
|
viii. Respondent |
District collector and chairman, state-level vigilance committee, Tamil Nadu |
|
ix. Legal provisions |
Article 136, 226 of the Constitution of India
|
INTRODUCTION
A community certificate is an official document issued by the government to certify an individual belonging to a specific community, such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC)[1] It is primarily used for availing benefits under reservations in education, employment, and other government welfare schemes. The scrutiny of community certificates Article 15(4) gives the special power to the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
Article 16(4) permits the state to provide reservations in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented in state services. Articles 341 & 342 of the constitution provide the President the authority to specify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for each state, subject to parliamentary approval. As Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, Articles 38 and 46 emphasize the role of the state in promoting the welfare of weaker sections of society.
Other legislation protects backward classes, Scheduled castes, and Scheduled Tribes as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 It is defined as the list of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The scrutiny and verification of community certificates are carried out by specific committees established under government regulations, primarily governed by State-specific legislation and rules. At the requirement of time, guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India.
FACT OF THE CASE
Factual background of the case:
- The matrix of the case, the appellant who belongs to the Valluvan community as a Schedule Caste. On 28.08.1982, the Tahsildar of Mylapore – Triplicane, Chennai issued a community certificate as she belonged to the Valluvan community at the time studying in tenth class. The appellant applied for a community certificate when she joined service as an office of the Accountant General.
- On 12.07.1985, the Tahsildar of Mylapore -Triplicane of Chennai issued a new community certificate which was submitted by the appellant upon joining the service in the office of Accountant General on 17.07.1985. Dr. Ambedkar Service Association made a complaint against the authenticity of the community certificate submitted by the appellant at the time of joining the service.
Procedural background of the case:
- Based on the complaint, the District Collector conducted an inquiry into the genuineness of the community certification issued to the appellant. On 27.05.1998, a notice was presented by the District Collector to the appellant upon giving a show cause notice of cancellation of the community certificate. The District Collector directed the Revenue Divisional officer to conduct an inquiry.
- The District Vigilance Committee conducted an inquiry and found out the Appellant belongs to the Valluvan community as a Schedule Caste. The Appellant’s service as a section Officer was legalized on 27.01.2000 and she was promoted to Assistant Accountant Officer on 31.12.2001.
- Again, the Dr. Ambedkar Service Association submitted a fresh representation and sought action against the Appellant for allegedly securing employment under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste with false certification. On 24.03.2003 the State Level Scrutiny Committee conducted an inquiry and issued a notice to the Appellant for attending the inquiry. The Appellant was present before the State Level Scrutiny Committee as a response to the notice.
- On 06.07.2005, the Government of Tamil Nadu reconstitution the District Vigilance Committee through G. O. Ms. 111, Adi Dravidar, and Tribal Welfare (ADW-10) Department. On 04.01.2006, the State Level Scrutiny Committee returned to the matter of inquiry of Community Certificate to the District Vigilance Committee. The Procedure of conducted inquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and District Vigilance Committee was given in G.O. (2D) No.: 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department on 12.09.2007. After the Reconstitution, the District Vigilance Committee conducted an inquiry where the Appellant and her mother appeared before the Committee and also presented the relevant documents A Order was passed by the District Vigilance Committee of cancellation of community certificate against the Appellant on 09.04.2008.
- The appellant was dissatisfied with the Order dated 09.04.2008 and filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Madras against the Order. On 22.12.2008 the Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with the Judgement. After the High Court’s dismissal, the Appellant filed the Present Appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the State Level Scrutiny Committee could reopen the case finalized by the District Vigilance Committee or not?
- Whether the repeated inquiries violate procedural safeguards as outlined in G.O.108?
- Whether the findings of the District Vigilance Committee inquiry in 2008 was valid or not?
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- Learned counsel Mr. K. Ramamurti appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the District Vigilance Committee upheld the Appellant belongs to the Valluvan community as Scheduled Caste on 31.12.1999 decision which remained unchallenged.
- He contended that the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to remand the matter for fresh inquiry which was already decided.
- In the matter present that the Case Kumari Madhuri Patil &Anr. V. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.[2] And Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. Supreme Court held that once a community certificate is finalized, it can not be reopened.
- He submitted supporting document evidence to prove the Appellant’s status with the Memorandum of family settlement dated 01.11.1932 and sale deed dated 05.10.1978 executed by Abdul Masjid Rawoother in favor of the father of the appellant.
- Ramamurti argued that the Government order as G. O. (2D) No.:108 on 12.09.2007 dispute regarding the Appellant’s Community certificate should not have been remitted for reconsideration
- Learned Counsel said that the contradiction in findings of the order dated 09.04.2008 of the District Vigilance Committee in 1999 and hence, it will be set aside.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- The learned counsel, Mr. Pulkit Tare representing the State submitted that the District Vigilance Committee was reconstituted through G.O.(Ms) No.111 issued by the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department on 06.07.2005. These committees were established after the Supreme Court decided in the case Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner[3], the guidelines for verifying community certificates.
- Learned Counsel further argued that guidelines for the functioning of the District Vigilance Committee and State Level Scrutiny Committee were issued by G.O.108 dated 12.09.2007 which outlines the procedures for verifying the authenticity of the Community Certificate. So State Level Scrutiny Committee remanded the appellant’s certificate to the District Vigilance Committee for a fresh inquiry in compliance with the procedural guidelines of the Government order dated 12.09.2007.
- Learned Counsel said that the District Vigilance Committee after the detailed investigation, found out the appellant does not belong to a Schedule Caste
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Constitution of India:
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence, or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” [4]
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories about which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders, or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction about the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, making an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order, and furnishing a copy of such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterward on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.” [5]
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned about the misuse of reservation benefits. The verification process for social status claims related to caste, sub-caste, tribe, or tribal community and the vigilance cell follows the investigative procedures and the actions to be taken if a claim is found to be false or doubtful.
A gazetted officer must provide specific details about caste, sub-caste, tribe, and place of origin. Each Directorate must have a vigilance cell led by a Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, with inspectors conducting field investigations. Inspectors verify claims by visiting the candidate’s current and original residence, reviewing records (e.g., school records, birth registration), and interviewing relevant individuals. The report includes anthropological and ethnological traits, customs, and rituals of the claimed community. If the vigilance report raises doubts, a show-cause notice is issued to the candidate with a copy of the report. The candidate has up to 30 days to respond, and if a hearing is requested, a committee will evaluate the evidence. Public notifications may be issued, and objections from the community can be considered. The committee’s order is final, and subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. No other legal proceedings are permitted except under Article 226. If the claim is proven false, the candidate/guardian faces prosecution. A conviction may result in disqualification from holding public offices or contesting elections.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, issued specific guidelines to regulate the process of caste verification.
- Applications for social status certificates must be submitted to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer or Deputy Collector/Commissioner, rather than lower-level officers.
- Applicants or their guardians must provide an affidavit attested by a gazetted officer.
- Each state government must establish a three-member committee for verification, consisting of senior officials from the relevant department and an expert in caste verification.
- Scheduled Tribe verification requires the involvement of a Research Officer familiar with tribal identifications.
- If a report confirms the authenticity of the caste certificate, no further action is required. If the certificate is found to be false, legal action should follow the procedure outlined in the judgment. Minors must have their guardians present during verification proceedings.
- The Scrutiny Committee is an administrative body whose decisions can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. Civil suits are discouraged to avoid prolonged litigation and abuse of the verification system.
Dayaram Case Verification of caste certificates issued without inquiry must be conducted by the Scrutiny Committees. Certificates obtained through a due process need no further verification.
Tamil Nadu Government Guidelines (G.O. 108 of 2007) District Vigilance Committees reconstituted in 2005 have the final authority on caste certificates before September 2007. Individuals dissatisfied with Vigilance Committee findings must approach the High Court. Specific appeal procedures for cases involving Deputy Tahsildar-issued certificates.
The inquiry should be completed as quickly as possible, ideally through daily proceedings. The total period for completing the inquiry should not exceed two months. If the Committee finds the caste claim to be false, cancel Or confiscate the caste certificate. The Committee must inform the applicant and their parent/guardian of the inquiry results. This communication should be made within one month from the conclusion of the proceedings.
In case of Admission and Appointed, there is a delay in finalizing proceedings, candidates may be provisionally admitted to educational institutions or appointed to posts based on an existing social status certificate or an affidavit. The concerned educational institution or appointing authority must be informed by registered post. The admission or appointment must be canceled immediately without further notice to the candidate, and they will be debarred from continuing their studies or holding the position. This provisional status is subject to the final decision of the Scrutiny Committee.
The High Court Is directed to resolve such cases within three months. If a Single Judge disposes of the case, no appeal to the Division Bench is allowed, except through a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the committee upheld the appellant’s community certificate. This decision was not challenged in any forum, meaning it became final. Since the District Level Vigilance Committee’s decision attained finality, the State Level Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction to reopen the case. Government Order (G.O.) 108, dated 12.09.2007, prohibits reopening finalized cases. A caste certificate can only be re-examined if fraud is detected or if the certificate was issued without proper inquiry. The District Level Vigilance Committee had previously canceled a community certificate after concluding that the candidate belonged to a different caste. The appeal was allowed, and the committee’s order dated 09.04.2008 was set aside.
CONCLUSION AND COMMENT
The appellant has faced false allegations regarding the status of her community certificate. It is noted that repeated inquiries for genuine caste certificates impact negatively and prevent reservation benefits for the person who belongs to such caste.
In my opinion, the scrutiny committee has certain rules and procedures for the inquiry of certificates because it is the beneficial certificate for the suppressed class who suffered a lot already.
[1] Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Community Certificate Guidelines. Government of India, https://socialjustice.gov.in.
[2] (1994) 6 SCC 241
[3] (2012) 1 SCC 333
[4] Article 136 of the Constitution of India
[5] Article 226 of the Constitution of India
