Sub-Divisional Officer Has No Power to Decide Caste Validity: Bombay High Court Quashes Orders Denying ST Certificates

“Jurisdictional Overreach Cannot Be Justified by Misreading of Evidence” - Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), in a significant reaffirmation of jurisdictional limits under the Caste Certificate Act, quashed orders passed by both the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola and the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, rejecting the Scheduled Tribe claims of three siblings from the Koli Mahadeo community. The Court held that both authorities had exceeded their statutory powers, and directed immediate issuance of caste certificates by the SDO, while ordering the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the case “without being influenced by earlier findings.”

The common judgment was delivered in Writ Petition Nos. 416, 98 and 58 of 2025, filed by Ajinkya, Karan, and Asmita Koltakke, and authored by Justice M.S. Jawalkar, sitting with Justice Raj D. Wakode.

“SDO’s Role is Ministerial, Not Adjudicatory”: Court Rejects Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction

The Court began by emphasizing the statutory scheme of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000, which clearly demarcates the SDO’s role under Section 4 as merely issuing caste certificates upon submission of documents, and reserves the adjudication of caste validity exclusively to the Caste Scrutiny Committee under Section 6.

Referring to a string of consistent precedents, including Sushil Rajendra Thakur v. SDO Daryapur, and Namdeo s/o Baburao Ingale v. Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Court observed:

“It is a settled position of law that the competent authority under Section 4... is not entitled to make a detailed enquiry as to the validity of the claim... for that is the job of the Committee constituted under Section 6.”

The High Court found that the SDO had acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction by examining whether the petitioners fulfilled area restrictions and tribal affinity conditions, and by relying on a 1947 sale deed recording the caste as “Koli”, which was incorrectly used to dismiss their ST claim.

The Court remarked:

“Respondent No. 2, by rejecting the petitioners’ applications, acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.”

“Scrutiny Committee Cannot Decide Validity Before Issuance of Certificate”: Bombay High Court Declares Premature Adjudication Illegal

The High Court was equally critical of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which had rejected the appeals of the petitioners not on procedural grounds, but on merits, treating the appeals as if they were validity proceedings. The Court held:

“Respondent No. 1 – the Scrutiny Committee while deciding the appeals... exceeded its jurisdiction. The Committee proceeded to decide the appeals as if it were adjudicating upon the validity of the caste certificates, which was not its function at that stage.”

This, the Court declared, was in clear violation of the statutory process, wherein a Scrutiny Committee can only assess caste validity after a certificate is issued, and only upon proper reference. Premature adjudication—before the certificate even exists—was termed as a manifest legal error.

Citing its earlier ruling in Dhanashree Ravindra Koli v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reaffirmed that:“The position in this matter is no longer res integra... the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction to assess caste validity at the stage of certificate issuance.”

“Judicial Consistency Demands Compliance with Settled Law”: Court Quashes Rejection and Orders Certificate Issuance Within Three Weeks

Concluding that both the SDO and the Committee had rendered findings without authority, and had failed to follow the mandatory statutory framework, the Court allowed all three writ petitions and passed a firm direction:

“The impugned orders... are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 – Sub Divisional Officer, Akola, is directed to issue caste certificates to the Petitioners... within a period of three weeks.”

The Court further clarified that the Scrutiny Committee shall be free to examine the caste validity, but “only upon proper referral, and without being influenced by its earlier findings.”

The observations in the judgment underscore the importance of strict jurisdictional discipline in caste verification matters, where unauthorized adjudication can lead to unjust denial of constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes.

“Caste Scrutiny Cannot Begin Before Caste Is Recognized”: High Court Calls Out Administrative Misuse of Power

The judgment has wider implications in Maharashtra’s caste verification regime, where numerous cases have emerged involving similar pre-emptive rejection of ST claims at the certificate issuance stage. The Court reiterated that the law provides a two-tier mechanism—first, issuance of caste certificate under Section 4, and then, validity scrutiny under Section 6, and the two processes must not be conflated.

In powerful words, the Court held:

“Jurisdictional boundaries under the Caste Certificate Act are not optional— they are mandatory safeguards. Deviation from them violates statutory intent and undermines the rights of citizens.”

This landmark judgment stands as a clear warning to authorities not to usurp roles assigned to specialized bodies under the Act, and sends a strong message that procedural shortcuts cannot be tolerated when it comes to caste recognition.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling in the Koltakke siblings’ case affirms that administrative bodies must act within their legally defined roles and cannot pre-judge claims based on assumptions or isolated records. By reinforcing the legal framework under the 2000 Act and quashing unlawful orders passed without jurisdiction, the judgment safeguards the rights of Scheduled Tribe communities, and sets a compelling precedent for similar disputes across Maharashtra.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2025