SC confirms disqualification of Candidate as a Member of Panchayat since he failed to produce Caste Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date of his election as mandated u/s 10-1A of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959
Justices Vikram Nath & K.V. Viswanathan [07-02-2024]

Read Order: SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS v. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS [SC-CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 8, 2024: In a case pertaining to the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, the Supreme Court has opined that the appellant-candidate stood automatically disqualified as a Member as he failed to produce his Caste Validity Certificate within the prescribed time as per Section 10(1A).

The Appellant No. 1 filed his nomination papers for contesting elections as a Member of the Panchayat of Village Jambulani, District Satara on a seat reserved for the OBC category in the year 2020. As early as on 03.02.2013 itself, the Appellant No. 1 was issued a Caste Certificate certifying that he belongs to ‘Lonari’ Caste which is an Other Backward Class. He had on the same day of filing his nomination papers applied for a Validity Certificate which is an essential requirement 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 [Caste Certificate Act, 2000].

On 13.06.2023, eight Members moved a No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2-Sushila Sitaram Kalel, expressing No Confidence in her being the Sarpanch. The eight Respondents herein voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. If Appellant No.1 was entitled to sit, the total number of members would be eleven and eight members voting would only constitute 72.73%. If the Appellant No.1 was not entitled to sit, then the total number of members would be ten and eight members voting would constitute 80%. On 19.06.2023, on the ground that there was absence of minimum three-fourth of the Members voting in favour of the motion, the No Confidence Motion was ordered as rejected.

The issue in this matter pertained to the validity of this No Confidence Motion. A Motion of No Confidence was to be carried by not less than three-fourth of the total number of members who were entitled, to ‘sit’ and ‘vote’. If the Appellant No. 1 was entitled to ‘Sit’ as a member on 19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2 couldnot ‘Stand’. The High Court had found against the appellants. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Top Court in appeal.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted that the elections were held on 18.01.2021 and the results were declared on 21.01.2021. The appellant no.1 ought to have furnished the Validity Certificate by 20.01.2022.

Referring to the object of Section 10-1A and 30- 1A of the Panchayats Act along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, the Bench sais, “From those who aspire to contest for a reserved seat and who take a risk of applying for the validity certificate by filing an application before the date of nomination, it is prudent to expect that they will show utmost due diligence in the prosecution of their application. This would mean that they are expected to do all that is within their control to do and submit with the Scrutiny Committee a valid application for their consideration. In fact, it was on the basis that applicants aspiring to contest election who do not possess a Validity Certificate, were taking a risk, that the provisions were held to be mandatory.”

As per the Bench, there was an obligation to furnish the validity certificate on or before 20.01.2022. The Appellant No. 1 admitted in the second application filed on 14.06.2023 that inspite of possessing the declaration of the result, for some reason, he could not file the same with the Scrutiny Committee. The consequence was that on 20.01.2022, the Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as a Member with retrospective effect from the date of his election, under Section 10-1A of the Panchayats Act. On 01-03/4/2021, under Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the Caste Certificate Rules, the applications were ‘filed’ for not submitting of the notification of his election.

As per the Bench, the appellant No. 1 did not submit the declaration either within one week as undertaken or within two weeks as provided in Mandakani Kachru Kokane alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. In cases where there is due communication from the applicants, the Division Bench in Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra) had obligated the Scrutiny Committee to decide the case within a maximum period of eight months from the date of communication. It was also opined that the Scrutiny Committee which is faced with a large number of applications can legitimately expect that the applicants who require disposal on priority basis should comply with the formalities required to enable the applicant to get priority in decision making.

“The Committee under Rule 17(3) is also entitled to reject incomplete applications by recording reasons. Under Section 17(2) it is also the obligation of the applicant to comply with removal of objections raised”, the Bench said while noting that it was it was is in this background that the order dated 03.04.2021 came to be passed whereby the applications (including those of the Appellant No.1), were ‘filed’. The issue before the Bench was whether the order of 01-03.04.2021 would tantamount to a rejection under Section 3(2)(b) of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 so as to dis-entitle Appellant No.1 from the benefit of Section 3.

The Bench was of the view that Accepting the contention of the Appellant No.1 would also amount to putting a premium on the concession given to a party who was taking the ‘risk’ of contesting the election by not having a Validity Certificate on the date of the nomination. It was further held that Section 3(1) of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 would not apply since there was no valid application filed before the nomination to the Scrutiny Committee and which was pending. It was also the undertaking of the Appellant No.1 that his application was not pending.

“For the above reasons, we hold that the Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed to produce the Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date of his election. The protective umbrella of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by Section 3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no valid application pending on the date of the commencement of the said Act”, the Bench observed.

It was also affirmed that rejection under Rule 17 wouldn’t result in the cancellation of his caste certificate. This was also reinforced by the fact that the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, by its letter stated that the Appellant No.1’s application dated 30.12.2020 was “disposed for non-compliance” and clarified that his Caste Certificate was not invalidated. The Appellant No.1 may take the benefit of the validity certificate issued to him on 12.07.2023, pursuant to his second application of 14.06.2023, for sustaining his Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority on 03.02.2013, for contesting in future elections and for claiming other concessions as may be available in law, it added.

As the Appellant No.1 had ceased to be a member because of the automatic disqualification, the Bench noticed that the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 19.06.2023 rejecting the No Confidence Motion on the ground that the voting requirement of three-fourth of the members “entitled to sit and vote”, was not fulfilled, couldnot be sustained and had rightly been set aside by the High Court.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench held that the High Court was right in setting aside the rejection of the No Confidence Motion and in holding that the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2- Sarpanch, was duly carried. The High Court was also justified in directing that the Appellant No.2 should stop exercising the powers as a sarpanch and in further directing that the election for the post of village Sarpanch be notified afresh.