Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS Doctrine of Natural Justice Cannot Be Invoked to Evade Regulatory Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Against Consumer Forum Order School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Double Payment for the Same Claim Is Against Public Policy: Karnatka High Court Remits Case to Commercial Court Land Acquisition | Once the Government Funds an Acquisition, Public Purpose Cannot Be Disputed: Bombay High Court When a Man Acts in the Heat of the Moment, Law Must Recognize the Loss of Self-Control: KERALA HIGH COURT Absence of Bank Seal on Cheque Return Memo Not a Ground for Acquittal: Calcutta High Court Convicts Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case False Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce: Gujarat High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case State Liable for Electrocution Injury to Minor Due to Uncovered High-Voltage Wire: J&K and Ladakh High Court

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

Similar News