CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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.

 

Latest Legal News