The Bombay High Court has held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, being a statutory body exercising quasi-judicial functions under the Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, has no jurisdiction to review, revisit or reopen its own final orders granting caste validity certificates, either on an application, on a complaint, or suo motu, as no such power is expressly conferred by the statute and no such inherent power can be read into the Act.
The Court clarified that Section 7(1) is confined to cancellation and confiscation of a false caste certificate and cannot be extended to review of a validity certificate, while Section 7(2) makes orders under the Act final, subject only to challenge before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Any order passed by the Committee in purported exercise of such review jurisdiction is wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that the issue was no longer res integra and stood covered by earlier Division Bench decisions, particularly Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1013] and Bharat Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2537]. The Bench noted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is a creature of statute under the 2000 Act and that the Act does not confer any specific power of review on the Committee to review its final decision.
Analysing Sections 2(a), 4, 6, 7, 9 and 15 of the Act, the Bench reiterated that Section 7(1) empowers the Committee to cancel and confiscate a false caste certificate, but not to review a caste validity certificate already granted by it. It emphasized that a “caste certificate” is distinct from a “caste validity certificate”, and that once a decision is taken by the Scrutiny Committee under the Act, including grant of validity under Section 6, the Committee becomes functus officio. The finality under Section 7(2) means that any challenge can only be made before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench further observed that no review jurisdiction can be implied from Section 9, which only confers limited civil court powers for enquiry and consciously does not confer powers akin to review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It rejected the contention that the Committee possesses “inherent jurisdiction” to review its own orders, including in cases of alleged fraud, holding that such a proposition is untenable in law and would defeat the mandate of Section 7(2).
The Bench also noted that permitting such review would create monumental uncertainty, unsettle concluded issues, and allow reopening of caste validity determinations without statutory limitation or judicial control. Even where fraud or illegality is alleged in relation to a validity certificate, the only course open is to approach the High Court under Article 226 and seek interference there.
Also Read Delhi Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to FinBox Executives in Alleged Loan Fraud Case
Briefly, the petitions challenged common orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune / Regional Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby, after earlier granting validity certificates to the petitioners’ caste certificates, the Committee purported to exercise powers of review on complaints made by private respondents and set aside its own earlier orders. The principal issue was whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee has the power to review its own order once a validity certificate has been issued. The petitioners contended that such power does not exist under 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.
