District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the District Caste and Income Verification Committee constituted under Section 4C of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments Etc.) Act, 1990 lacks jurisdiction to entertain private third-party complaints and direct the cancellation of a caste certificate without a formal requisition for a validation certificate, held Justice T.P. Vivekananda on November 3, 2026.

The petitioner, who had obtained a caste certificate in 2017 certifying his community as 'Bhovi' (Scheduled Caste), faced challenges from private respondents alleging that his family migrated from Tamil Nadu belonging to the 'Boyer' caste, a backward class. After an initial police enquiry closed the issue in 2022, private complainants lodged fresh representations before the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, leading to departmental communications and an eventual order by the District Caste and Income Verification Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner on April 4, 2024, directing cancellation of the petitioner's certificate.

Whether the District Caste and Income Verification Committee has the statutory authority under Section 4C of the Act to adjudicate third-party complaints and order cancellation of a caste certificate when no application for validation has been made by the candidate, an employer, or an educational institution?

Whether an order passed collectively by the multi-member District Caste and Income Verification Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner can be construed as an exercise of revisional power under Section 4F of the Act?

Statutory framework provides specific channels for appeal and validation

Examining the scheme of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments Etc.) Act, 1990, the court noted that caste certificates are issued by the Tahsildar under Section 4A, against which an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B. The bench observed that the proceedings initiated by the Social Welfare Department at the behest of private complainants could not be treated as an appeal under Section 4B or Section 4D of the Act.

Verification Committee's jurisdiction under Section 4C requires validation request

The court underscored that the District Caste and Income Verification Committee cannot assume jurisdiction over private complaints without a formal request for issuance of a validation certificate. The bench observed that under the statutory framework, such validation is initiated either at the instance of the candidate seeking benefits or by an appointing authority or educational institution.

"In the present case, the petitioner or the appointing authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the University or any educational institution have not sought for issue of validation certificate. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the DCVC exercising its purported power under Section 4C of the Act, cannot be sustained," the court held.

Committee's decision cannot be equated with Deputy Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction

The bench rejected the submission that the proceedings could be protected as a revisional exercise under Section 4F of the Act. The court clarified that the revisional power under Section 4F is vested exclusively in the Deputy Commissioner acting as a revisional authority, rather than in a committee setup.

"The exercise of power by the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be equated with that of the revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4F of the Act," Justice Vivekananda observed, emphasizing that a decision rendered by a multi-member committee cannot be substituted for the statutory revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner.

Private objectors must establish locus standi before appropriate statutory forums

The court concluded that the entire chain of proceedings, from the entertainability of the complaint by the police to the final order of the Committee, was ultra vires the Act. The remedy available to private objectors was either to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B or to prefer a revision under Section 4F before the Deputy Commissioner, subject to demonstrating their legal standing.

The bench made it clear that private objectors must establish their locus standi to question the validity of a caste certificate in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated April 4, 2024 passed by the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, clarifying that the order would not bar private respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent authority in accordance with law and upon establishing their locus standi.

Date of Decision: November 3, 2026