The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by a mayoral candidate whose nomination was rejected for not possessing a caste certificate issued by the competent authority of Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioner had filed a Civil Revision under Section 441-F(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, challenging the order dated February 23, 2018, passed by the District Judge, Ujjain, which had dismissed her election petition against the rejection of her nomination in the 2015 Ujjain Municipal Corporation elections.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia held, "The petitioner migrated in the year 1998 from the State of Rajasthan to Madhya Pradesh after her marriage, therefore, she is not entitled to contest the election on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of the State of Rajasthan. Hence, respondent No.2 rightly rejected her nomination form and learned District Judge committed no error in dismissing the Election Petition, hence, no interference is called."

Background

The election for the post of Mayor in Ujjain was held on August 12, 2015, and the result was declared on August 16, 2015, with Smt. Meena Jonwal being elected as Mayor. The said seat was reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category.

The petitioner had submitted her nomination form along with necessary documents, including a caste certificate issued by the State of Rajasthan certifying her as belonging to the 'Bairwa' Scheduled Tribe. However, the Returning Officer rejected her nomination on July 29, 2015, citing the absence of a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Madhya Pradesh.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Senior Advocate Girish Patwardhan, appearing for the petitioner, contended that 'Bairwa' is recognized as an ST in both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, and thus the caste certificate from Rajasthan should suffice. He further argued that as per Section 24-A(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994, the Election Officer lacked authority to reject the nomination form.

He emphasized that while the 2015 election is long over, the rejection of the nomination on this ground could adversely affect the petitioner’s right to contest future elections under the reserved category.

Respondent’s Stand

Counsel for the State argued that under the Election Commission’s 2015 guidelines and Rule 28 of the 1994 Rules, the Returning Officer was empowered to scrutinize and reject nominations for non-compliance. It was contended that reservation benefits are limited to individuals who possess valid caste certificates issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Court’s Observations

The High Court held that the issue of eligibility based on a caste certificate issued by another state is no longer res integra. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Action Committee v. Union of India (1994), the Court noted that Scheduled Caste/Tribe status is state-specific and that benefits, including electoral reservations, cannot be claimed in a state other than the one issuing the caste certificate, unless the migration occurred prior to 1950.

Since the petitioner moved to Madhya Pradesh in 1998 post-marriage and did not possess a caste certificate from the State of Madhya Pradesh, she was not entitled to contest the election on the reserved seat.

"The General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh issued a Circular dated 13.01.2014 to all Sub Divisional Officers, Collector, and Divisional Commissioner in respect of the issuance of caste certificate. Clause 8.11(iii) deals with the issuance of caste certificates, according to which as per Order No.BC16014/1/82-SC&BCD-1 dated 06.08.1994 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the facility of the reservation shall be available in the same State from where the caste certificate is issued. The State Government has clarified that the facility of the reservation shall not be available in the State of Madhya Pradesh in absence of the caste certificate issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh," the Court observed.

The Court further rejected the argument regarding lack of authority with the Election Officer, stating that Rule 28(6) of the 1994 Rules expressly empowers the Returning Officer to accept or reject nomination papers with recorded reasons.

Conclusion

Observing that the term of the elected Mayor had already ended and the election petition had become infructuous, the Court nevertheless decided the legal question, holding that the petitioner was rightly disqualified from contesting due to lack of proper certification. The Civil Revision was accordingly dismissed, affirming the District Judge’s decision and the Returning Officer’s rejection of nomination.

Cause Title: Smt. Preeti Gehlod v. M.P. State Election Commission And Others [Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-IND:8308]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Girish Patwardhan, Advocate Shri Brij Mohan Gehlod

Respondent: Advocates Kamal Nayan Airen, Amit Bhatia (Government Pleader)

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Vivek RusiaMadhya Pradesh High Court

Sukriti Mishra

Legal Correspondent

Sukriti Mishra is a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She extensively covers the Supreme Court. She has completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022, she has previously worked with another legal news portal, where she extensively covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.