The Patna High Court has set aside the proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order of the State Election Commission, Bihar, which had resulted in the removal of a sitting Mukhiya from office on the ground that he was not an original resident of Bihar and was therefore not entitled to reservation on the basis of his caste certificate. The Court held that the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act, 1991, as amended by Bihar Act 15 of 2003, does not govern reservation in elections to the post of Mukhiya, which is governed by Section 15(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Justice Partha Sarthy, hearing the writ petition, noted that the petitioner had been elected as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Sahuria in the 2021 elections from a seat reserved for the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category. A complaint was subsequently filed before the State Election Commission alleging that although the petitioner belonged to the Sheikh community, he had fraudulently obtained a caste certificate showing him as belonging to the Teli (Muslim) community and contested the EBC-reserved seat.
Pursuant to directions from the Criminal Investigation Department (Weaker Section), a three-member committee conducted an inquiry, including verification of the caste certificate and inquiries from the petitioner’s villagers, neighbours, relatives and public representatives. The committee ultimately submitted its report on December 31, 2024, categorically finding that the petitioner belonged to the Teli (Muslim) caste.
However, a subsequent Caste Scrutiny Committee report dated March 28, 2025, communicated on April 11, 2025, denied the petitioner the benefit of reservation on the ground that his ancestors had migrated from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, and that he was therefore not entitled to reservation benefits in Bihar. The State Election Commission subsequently relied upon this finding and, by its June 25, 2025 order, set aside the petitioner’s election as Mukhiya.
The High Court found a fundamental error in this reasoning. It observed that reservation for elections to the post of Mukhiya is governed by Section 15(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, whereas the 1991 Reservation Act merely supplies the list of Backward Classes referred to under the Panchayat Raj Act. The Court therefore held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had erred in applying Bihar Act 15 of 2003, which provides that candidates residing outside Bihar cannot claim reservation under the 1991 Act.
The Court further held that the petitioner could not be treated as a person residing out of the State of Bihar merely because his ancestors had migrated from Jaunpur. The record showed that his ancestors had been residing in Bihar for around 125 years, spanning three to four generations. The Court also noted that the statutory provision did not restrict reservation benefits only to original residents of Bihar.
Also Read SC Dismisses Reliance’s Appeal; Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs for Delaying 20-Year-Old NTPC Gas Supply Suit
Importantly, the High Court pointed out that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, despite denying the petitioner reservation, had neither cancelled his caste certificate nor recommended its cancellation, nor had it found that he belonged to any caste other than Teli (Muslim).
The Court also found that the State Election Commission had erred in concluding that the caste certificate itself was incorrect. The Commission’s conclusion was based on the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s findings, but the first inquiry report had categorically found the petitioner to be Teli (Muslim), while the subsequent report did not actually find that he belonged to another caste.
Accordingly, the Court held that both the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s proceedings dated March 28, 2025, communicated on April 11, 2025, and the State Election Commission’s order dated June 25, 2025 were unsustainable and set them aside. The writ petition was consequently allowed.
