Caste Scrutiny Committee Has Inherent Power To Seek Fresh Vigilance Report On A Document: Bombay High Court
The Bench noted that Rule 17(7) of the Caste Certificate Rules reasons needed only if entire report is discarded; “Kunbi” OBC certificate of councillor stays invalid, no remand for pre-constitution document.
The Bombay High Court has held that the duty to record reasons under Rule 17(7) of the applies only when a Scrutiny Committee discards an entire Vigilance Cell report, and not when it merely directs the re-examination of a single document.
The Bombay High Court has held that a Caste Scrutiny Committee possesses inherent power to seek re-examination of a document from its Vigilance Cell, clarifying that the statutory duty to record reasons under Rule 17(7) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 applies only when an entire Vigilance Cell report is discarded.
The Bench explained that because the Vigilance Cell is meant to provide internal assistance to the Scrutiny Committee, directing the re-verification of an individual document does not trigger the requirement of issuing a reasoned order under Rule 17(7). It refused to remand the matter to consider a fresh pre-Constitution document, as the petitioner had not come with clean hands, and held that her election stands terminated under Section 10(4) of the Amendment Act.
A Division Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed, “…the Scrutiny Committee, can avail of the assistance of the Vigilance Cell, and would, in our view, have inherent powers to direct the Vigilance Cell to submit a further report in the event re-examination of a document relied upon by the Vigilance Cell is required. Otherwise, the whole purpose of the Vigilance Cell providing internal assistance to the Scrutiny Committee would be nullified”.
“…Rule 17(7) of the said Rules provides that the Scrutiny Committee shall record its reasons for discarding the report of the Vigilance Cell. This would be applicable where the entire Vigilance Cell report has been discarded”, the Bench further noted.
Surel Shah, Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner Advocate C.G. Gavnekar appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, elected councillor of a Municipal Council in Raigad in December 2025, held a caste certificate of July 08, 2016 issued by the SDO, Mahad, certifying her as “Kunbi, OBC”. The defeated candidate, Respondent No. 6, complained that her father’s school leaving certificate recorded his caste as “Hindu Maratha”. He also produced an affidavit from one Suryakant Tukaram Shigwan, shown in her genealogy as paternal uncle, stating that her father had borrowed his caste certificate.
The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, sought Vigilance Cell reports on the grandfather’s Form 14 birth record. A report of May 29, 2026 found it in order, but on June 05, 2026 the Committee directed re-examination. A second report of June 10, 2026 was adverse. By order of August 10, 2026, the Committee invalidated the certificate, and the Collector disqualified her as councillor on August 18, 2026. She argued that the Committee gave no reasons for departing from the first report, and produced an 1893 “Kunbi” entry relating to her great-grandfather’s son.
The Court found that the Committee had not discarded the first report but sought re-examination of one document, and that the petitioner was heard on both reports. It held on a plain reading that the Form 14 showed re-writing, cancellation and change of ink. It distinguished Ashwini Ramchandra Bhogam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors and noted that the Committee had given reasons for accepting the second report. It declined a remand, citing a fabricated document and a tampered genealogy.
The Court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs. It observed that the new appeal under Section 6B of the Amendment Act cannot presently be relied on, since the State stated that no SoPs exist for appeals by OBC claimants. It hoped the Government would frame rules and SoPs.
Cause Title: Rupali Kashinath Shigwan @ Rupali Amol Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:40252-DB).
Appearances:
Petitioner: Surel Shah, Senior Counsel.
Respondent: C.G. Gavnekar, S.H. Kankal, AGP.