Election Tribunal Cannot Examine Validity Of Caste Certificates; Such Challenge Lies Only Before Scrutiny Committees: Allahabad High Court
The Court has held that a caste certificate issued by the competent authority cannot be challenged or scrutinised in an election petition, observing that only the statutory scrutiny committees constituted by the State Government are empowered to validate or invalidate such certificates.
The Allahabad High Court has held that an Election Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to examine the validity or genuineness of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority while adjudicating an election petition.
The Court observed that where the State has constituted statutory District, Regional (Divisional) and State Level Scrutiny Committees for verification of caste certificates, the exclusive authority to validate or invalidate such certificates vests in those committees, and not in the Election Tribunal.
The Court was hearing an election petition seeking to set aside the election of a returned candidate from a Scheduled Caste reserved Assembly constituency on the ground that he had allegedly obtained his Scheduled Caste certificate fraudulently despite belonging to the Other Backwards Class category.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed: "Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority neither can be challenged nor it can be scrutinized by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition. In present matter too, there are three Committees i.e. District, Regional and State Level Committee constituted by State Government by different Government Orders for scrutiny of caste certificate, which are only having authority to validate or invalidate caste certificate. Further, Election Tribunal is having no authority to deal with such matters."
Petitioners appeared in person, while Advocate Ashutosh Mishra represented the respondents.
Background
The election petition arose from the election to a Scheduled Caste reserved Legislative Assembly constituency. The petitioner, who had also contested the election, alleged that the returned candidate actually belonged to the Other Backward Class category but had fraudulently secured a Scheduled Caste certificate and contested the election on that basis. Before the election, the petitioner had objected to the nomination before the Returning Officer, who rejected the objection, following which the returned candidate was declared elected.
The sole ground raised in the election petition was that the returned candidate's caste certificate had been fraudulently obtained. However, it was undisputed that the caste certificate was already under challenge before the District Level Scrutiny Committee and had not been cancelled by any competent authority till the date of the hearing. The Court, therefore, first proceeded to decide the preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to examine the validity of the caste certificate.
Court's Observations
The Court first noted that the State Government had established a comprehensive statutory mechanism for issuance and verification of caste certificates through Government Orders constituting District, Divisional and State Level Scrutiny Committees. These committees function hierarchically and exclusively determine disputes relating to the validity of caste certificates.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on earlier decisions, the Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the issuance of the caste certificate by the competent authority. The controversy related only to its correctness, which could not be examined by the Returning Officer or the Election Tribunal unless the certificate had first been invalidated by the competent scrutiny authority. The Court further noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Anandra Vithoba Adsul had already been overruled by the Supreme Court in Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. State of Maharashtra (2024).
The Bench then referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (1994), observing that it had laid down an exhaustive mechanism governing issuance, verification and cancellation of caste certificates and mandated constitution of specialised scrutiny committees for that purpose. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had categorically held that the orders of such scrutiny committees attain finality subject only to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Referring to Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012), the Court observed that the Supreme Court had further clarified the functions of the Scrutiny Committee and Vigilance Cell, reiterating that questions regarding the correctness or cancellation of caste certificates fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the statutory scrutiny mechanism.
The Court also relied upon Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. State of Maharashtra (2024), wherein the Supreme Court held: "The Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact finding authority. The High Court ought not to have interfered... there was nothing perverse about a finding of fact."
According to the High Court, this reaffirmed that adjudication regarding the validity of caste certificates lies within the exclusive domain of the expert scrutiny committees and not before courts exercising election jurisdiction.
The Bench further relied upon its earlier decision in Hizwana Bano v. State of U.P. (2010), which had reiterated that once a caste certificate is issued, the jurisdiction to validate or invalidate it vests only in the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
The Court observed: "The jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate and whether it should be validated or invalidated is of the Caste Scrutiny Committee."
Similarly, referring to Jai Prakash Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. (2022), the Court observed that the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil equally governs election disputes and that adjudication regarding caste validity of a returned candidate must first be undertaken by the statutory scrutiny committees constituted by the State Government.
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in A. Raja v. D. Kumar (2025), wherein it was held: "A duly issued Caste/Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition. In case no statute governing the field in a State/Union Territory is operative, the Madhuri Patil (supra) guidelines, as modified in Dayaram (supra), shall be followed."
Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the caste certificate relied upon by the returned candidate continued to remain valid as it had not been cancelled by the competent scrutiny committee. Consequently, the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction either to scrutinise its correctness or to declare it forged while deciding the election petition.
Conclusion
Holding that the challenge to the returned candidate's caste certificate could be decided only by the statutory scrutiny committees constituted under the Government Orders, the High Court answered the jurisdictional issue against the petitioner and dismissed the election petition as lacking merit.
Cause Title: Radha Charan v. State of U.P. and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:133415)
Appearances
Petitioner: In Person, Ram Kumar Gautam and Radha Charan.
Respondents: Ashutosh Mishra, Dinesh Yadav, K.R. Singh, Mohd. Rehan Ansari, P.K. Kashyap and Pradeep Kumar.
