Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Orissa High Court Quashes ST Certificate Cancellation; Orders Reconsideration Under 2023 Rules

29 January 2025 7:22 PM

By: sayum


Proceedings initiated under Madhuri Patil guidelines inapplicable where State-specific Rules prevail - Orissa High Court quashed the cancellation of the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The Court held that the proceedings were initiated improperly under the guidelines laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (1995), despite the existence of the Orissa Caste Certificate Rules, 1980. The matter has been remanded for reconsideration under the newly framed Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023.

The case centered around the cancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate, which had been issued in 1986 declaring him a member of the Scheduled Tribe community (Kandha Christian). The impugned order, dated March 29, 2016, not only invalidated the petitioner’s certificate but also directed the initiation of criminal proceedings, removal from service, and recovery of service benefits obtained using the certificate.

"Madhuri Patil Guidelines Not Applicable Where Specific Rules Exist," Observes High Court

The Court observed that the Supreme Court's directions in Madhuri Patil were intended to fill a legislative vacuum in states where specific rules for caste certificate issuance and verification were absent. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy noted, "In states like Odisha, where the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 were already in place, the Madhuri Patil directions are inapplicable."

Relying on Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012), the Court further explained that the Madhuri Patil framework cannot override state-specific legislation. Justice Satapathy quoted the Supreme Court's observation in Dayaram: "Directions issued in Madhuri Patil were valid and laudable to address the absence of legislation in certain states. However, where specific state rules exist, such directions have no application."

The High Court also referenced its own precedent in Sridhar Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha (2023), which clarified that caste certificate issues in Odisha are governed by the 1980 Rules.

"New 2023 Rules Govern Current Proceedings"

The Court took note of the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023, which replaced the 1980 Rules. These new rules provide a detailed framework for handling the issuance and verification of caste certificates. Justice Satapathy emphasized, "With the notification of the 2023 Rules, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is now empowered to address disputes concerning caste certificates. The matter must be reconsidered under the updated legal framework."

Participation in Proceedings Does Not Bar Legal Challenge

The respondents argued that the petitioner, having participated in the scrutiny proceedings and submitted a reply to the show cause notice, could not later challenge the validity of those proceedings. The Court rejected this argument, holding, "The petitioner’s participation in the proceedings does not preclude him from challenging the legality of actions taken under an inapplicable framework. A procedural defect cannot be cured merely by the petitioner’s participation."

"Due Process Must Prevail; Criminal and Service Actions Stayed"

The Court noted that the cancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate had led to his removal from service and the initiation of criminal proceedings. However, these actions were stayed by an interim order of the High Court. With the quashing of the impugned order, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the matter is decided afresh by the State Level Scrutiny Committee under the 2023 Rules.

Justice Satapathy remarked, "The principles of natural justice and due process demand that the petitioner’s claims be fairly evaluated under the appropriate legal framework. No adverse action can be sustained until the issue is resolved in accordance with the law."

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Level Scrutiny Committee’s order dated March 29, 2016. The matter was remanded for reconsideration under the Orissa Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Committee on February 7, 2025, and instructed the Committee to conclude the proceedings within four months.

Justice Satapathy concluded, "This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim. The matter shall be decided independently by the Scrutiny Committee under the 2023 Rules."

Date of Decision: January 27, 2025

Latest Legal News