2017 (7) TMI 1401 - SC - Indian Laws

Benefit of public employment on the basis of a claim to belong to a beneficiary group - Scheduled Caste a Scheduled Tribe or backward community - Halba-Halbi under Entry 19 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 - HELD THAT - It is declared that (i) The directions which were issued by the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 38 of the decision in Milind were in pursuance of the powers vested in this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution; (ii) Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil which was rendered on 2 September 1994, the regime which held the field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure for (a) the issuance of caste certificates; (b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the State Government; (c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation into the authenticity of the claim; (d) Cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where the claim is found to be false or not genuine; (e) Withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category; and (f) Prosecution for a criminal offence; (iii) The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and in Dattatray which were rendered by benches of three Judges laid down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual - such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution - on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est. (iv) The exception to the above doctrine was in those cases where this Court exercised its power Under Article 142 of the Constitution to render complete justice; (v) By Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 there is a legislative codification of the broad principles enunciated in Madhuri Patil. The legislation provides a statutory framework for regulating the issuance of caste certificates (Section 4); constitution of Scrutiny Committees for verification of claims (Section 6); submission of applications for verification of caste certificates (Section 6(2) and 6(3); cancellation of caste certificates (Section 7); burden of proof (Section 8); withdrawal of benefits obtained upon the invalidation of the claim (Section 10); and initiation of prosecution (Section 11), amongst other things; (vi) The power conferred by Section 7 upon the Scrutiny Committee to verify a claim is both in respect of caste certificates issued prior to and subsequent to the enforcement of the Act on 18 October 2001. Finality does not attach to a caste certificate (or to the claim to receive benefits) where the claim of the individual to belong to a reserved caste, tribe or class is yet to be verified by the Scrutiny Committee; (vii) Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false and is invalidated is a necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity would arise; (viii) The decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini of two learned Judges are overruled. Shalini in so far as it stipulates a requirement of a dishonest intent for the application of the provision of Section 10 is, with respect, erroneous and does not reflect the correct position in law; (ix) Mens rea is an ingredient of the penal provisions contained in Section 11. Section 11 is prospective and would apply in those situations where the act constituting the offence has taken place after the date of its enforcement; (x) The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone is manifestly erroneous and is overruled; and (xi) Though the power of the Supreme Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power vested in the court for rendering complete justice and is a power which is couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction must have due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 holds the field.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Affirmative Action and Reservation Policy
2. Fraudulent Claims and Constitutional Fraud
3. Judicial Review and Equities
4. Regulatory Framework: Madhuri Patil Guidelines
5. Halba/Halbi Controversy
6. Legislation in Maharashtra
7. Precedents and Judicial Interpretation
8. Judicial Discretion and Article 142
9. Retrospective Application of Law
10. Administrative Circulars and Government Resolutions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Affirmative Action and Reservation Policy
The Constitution of India envisages affirmative action to address social exclusion and economic deprivation of historically disadvantaged classes, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations in public employment and educational institutions are intended to achieve substantive equality. However, misuse by individuals not genuinely belonging to these groups constitutes a "fraud on the Constitution" and "egregious constitutional fraud."

2. Fraudulent Claims and Constitutional Fraud
The court addressed the issue of individuals securing benefits under false claims of belonging to reserved categories. Such actions deprive genuine beneficiaries and undermine the constitutional goal of social justice. The court emphasized the necessity of stringent measures to prevent the usurpation of benefits by imposters.

3. Judicial Review and Equities
The invocation of judicial review often involves claims for equitable relief due to the lapse of time. The court examined whether such equities could be sustained when the original claim to belong to a reserved category is invalidated. The court reiterated that claims based on fraud cannot be protected under the guise of equity.

4. Regulatory Framework: Madhuri Patil Guidelines
The Madhuri Patil case established a framework for scrutinizing caste claims, including the constitution of Scrutiny Committees and Vigilance Cells. The guidelines mandated the cancellation of false certificates and the prosecution of individuals making fraudulent claims. These guidelines were later codified into law by Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001.

5. Halba/Halbi Controversy
The Halba/Halbi controversy involved claims by Halba-Koshti individuals to be part of the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Milind held that the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 must be read as it is, without including sub-groups not specifically mentioned. This judgment reversed earlier decisions that had recognized Halba-Koshti as part of the Halba tribe.

6. Legislation in Maharashtra
Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 provides a statutory framework for issuing and verifying caste certificates, including the constitution of Scrutiny Committees and the consequences of invalidating false claims. Section 10 mandates the withdrawal of benefits obtained on the basis of false caste certificates, while Section 11 prescribes penalties for obtaining false certificates.

7. Precedents and Judicial Interpretation
Several decisions have addressed the issue of retaining benefits obtained under false caste claims. The court consistently held that appointments or admissions secured on false claims are void ab initio. Exceptions were made in specific cases under Article 142 to render complete justice, but such discretionary reliefs were not to be extended uniformly.

8. Judicial Discretion and Article 142
The court emphasized that judicial discretion under Article 142 should not be exercised to defeat legislative intent. The power under Article 142 is to render complete justice but must align with statutory provisions. The court noted that earlier judgments granting relief under Article 142 did not consider the statutory framework established by Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001.

9. Retrospective Application of Law
The court clarified that Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 applies to caste certificates issued before and after its commencement. However, the penal provisions of Section 11 are prospective and apply only to acts constituting offenses after the Act's enforcement. The withdrawal of benefits under Section 10 is a necessary consequence of invalidating a false caste claim.

10. Administrative Circulars and Government Resolutions
Administrative circulars and government resolutions cannot override constitutional or statutory norms. Protecting the services of individuals who obtained benefits on false claims contravenes the rights of genuine beneficiaries. The court held that government resolutions protecting such services are not legally sustainable.

Conclusion:
The court held that:
1. Directions in Milind were under Article 142.
2. The regime from Madhuri Patil's decision envisaged detailed procedures for verifying caste claims.
3. Invalidating caste claims results in void appointments or admissions.
4. Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 codified these principles.
5. Section 10 applies retrospectively for withdrawing benefits, while Section 11 is prospective.
6. Equitable reliefs under Article 142 should align with statutory provisions.
7. The Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone was overruled.
8. Individual cases were disposed of based on these principles, with no further benefits granted on invalidated caste claims.