Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of Sarpanch Over Delay in Submitting Caste Validity Certificate

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the apex court has upheld the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat member for failing to submit a caste validity certificate within the stipulated time. The court’s ruling in the case of Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. Vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors. Centered around the implications of not adhering to the mandatory requirements under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

At the heart of the judgment was the interpretation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023, which provided an extension to submit caste validity certificates. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the appellant was protected under these sections.

The case involved Sudhir Vilas Kalel, who contested the Gram Panchayat election from a reserved seat and won. However, he failed to submit his caste validity certificate within twelve months of his election, as mandated by law. The issue arose when a no-confidence motion was moved against the Sarpanch, and Kalel’s membership and voting rights were under scrutiny.

Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in his judgment, noted, “The statute and the scheme have been clear. From those who aspire to contest for a reserved seat and who take a risk of applying for the validity certificate by filing an application before the date of nomination, it is prudent to expect that they will show utmost due diligence in the prosecution of their application.” The judgment underscored the mandatory nature of the law, rejecting the notion that mere filing of an application for a validity certificate was sufficient.

The court delved into the interpretation of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the Temporary Extension Act, emphasizing the mandatory requirement to submit caste validity certificates for candidates contesting from reserved seats.

The Supreme Court held that Kalel’s failure to submit the validity certificate within the prescribed timeframe led to his automatic disqualification. It affirmed the judgment of the High Court, which had ruled against Kalel, stating that the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch was validly carried.

Date of Decision: February 07, 2024.

Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. Vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.

 

Similar News