Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Chaitanya vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 August, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11196 OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) NO.25192/2023)
CHAITANYA APPELLANT (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad dated 24.7.2023 in Writ Petition No. 8531 of 2022
by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein
came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the order dated
07.07.2022 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certification
Verification Committee, Kinwar through its Deputy Director
at Aurangabad holding that the appellant is not a member of
a Scheduled Tribe.
3. The facts of this case are quite gross but we need to
balance the equities in the wake of few mitigating
circumstances which have come on record.
4.
Signature Not Verified The appellant was born on 07.08.1998. On
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.08.29
18:23:39 IST
Reason:
01.07.2009, while she was still a minor, a caste certificate
came to be issued in her favor certifying her to be
1
belonging to the “Mannervarlu” Scheduled Tribe listed at Sl.
no. 27 of the Presidential Order, 1976.
5. As the appellant was desirous of pursuing MBBS Course,
she approached the Scrutiny Committee for verification of
her caste certificate through her father on 30.07.2015.
6. Unfortunately, the Scrutiny Committee was unable to
undertake the necessary enquiry expeditiously as regards the
claim of the appellant of being falling within Scheduled
Tribe.
7. The appellant came to be admitted to the MBBS Course
on 24.07.2016 on the basis of her caste certificate.
8. She successfully completed her MBBS in the year 2021.
9. The materials on record would indicate that all
throughout she performed well in the MBBS Course. We should
also take notice of the fact that her performance in
standard 12th examination was also very good.
10. After she completed her final year MBBS Course on
05.05.2021, she took up doing internship.
11. In the meantime, the Verification Committee passed an
order dated 07.07.2022 saying that she does not belong to
the “Mannervarlu” falling within Scheduled Tribe.
12. By the time the Scrutiny Committee passed the order,
she had cleared her MBBS and had also secured admission in
the PG Course but in the general category.
2
13. Today she is in the second year of the PG course.
14. As the Scrutiny Committee declared her to be not
falling within the Scheduled Tribe, the appellant questioned
the order by filing writ petition before the High Court.
15. The High Court adjudicated the writ petition and
ultimately dismissed the same holding as under:-
“6. We have heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and perused the relevant record with their able
assistance. The original record in respect of the
validity certificates granted in favour of the relatives
of the petitioner are also produced before this court.
What we noticed from record is that, school record of
the father of the petitioner was subsequently corrected
to insert his caste as ‘Mannervarlu’. Similar modus
appears in respect of many other blood relatives.
Pertinently, father of the petitioner Mr Sanjay Palekar
had submitted his Tribe validity claim before the
committee at Pune in the year 1989 and same was
invalidated vide order of committee dated 13.04.1989.
The appeal preferred by him before the Additional
commissioner, Nashik as per the relevant provisions was
dismissed on 19.06.1991 thereby confirming the order of
invalidation of the claim. Similarly, petitioner’s uncle
– Rajiv Palekar had suffered invalidation of his Tribe
claim under order dated 26.04.1989 of the committee. The
appeal filed against said order was also dismissed on
20.06.1991. The orders passed by the then committee as
well as appellate authority have attained finality.
7. It is abundantly clear that the affidavit was
tendered by petitioner before the committee stating that
there was no invalidity in the family. Pertinently, the
father and uncle of the petitioner, who had suffered
invalidation of the caste claim, again made false claims
for issuance of caste certificate suppressing the
earlier rejection and succeeded in obtaining validity
certificates. Apparently, father of the petitioner had
resorted to fraud while obtaining the validity
certificate dated 05.03.2007, He did not hesitate to
file false affidavit before committee at Aurangabad in
support of his subsequent claim as well as in the case
of the petitioner. In our considered view, subsequent
validation of the Tribe claim of the father and uncle of
the petitioner cannot enure to her benefit.
8. The petitioner has been relying upon the validities
granted in favour of the other relatives. We observe
that invalidation of the claim of the father and uncle
of the petitioner in the year 1989 and dismissal of3
their appeals in the year 1991 was suppressed from the
committee in all those proceedings. Validity of Tribe
claim of petitioner’s father is vitiated by fraud
consequently validations of distant relatives would not
benefit the petitioner.
9. At this stage, reference can be made to the judgment
of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of “Raju
Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others“
(2008) 9 SCC 54. Para. Nos. 27, 28 and 30 in the said
judgment read thus:-
“We do not mean to suggest that an opinion formed
by the Committee as regards the caste of the near
relative of the applicant would be wholly
irrelevant, but, at the same time, it must be
pointed out that only because, by mistake or
otherwise, a member of his family had been declared
to be belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe,
the same by itself would not be conclusive in
nature so as to bind another committee while
examining the case of other members of the family
in some detail. If it is found that in granting a
certificate in favour of a member of a family,
vital evidence had been ignored, it would be open
to the Committee to arrive at a different finding.
28. We reiterate that to fulfil the constitutional
norms, a person must belong a tribe before he can
stake his claim to be a member of a notified
Scheduled Tribe. When an advantage is obtained by a
person in violation of the constitutional scheme, a
constitutional fraud is committed.
30. The principle of res-judicata is undoubtedly a
salutary principle. Even a wrong decision would
attract the principle of res-judicata. The said
principle, however, amongst others, has some
exceptions e.g. when a judgment is passed without
jurisdiction, when the matter involves a pure
question of law or when the judgment has been
obtained by committing fraud on the court.”
Applying above legal preposition to the facts of this
case, it leaves no room to contend that validation of Tribe
claims of the distant relatives of the petitioner, without
noticing the earlier invalidation of the claim of the father
and uncle and obtained by relying upon their subsequent
validation which stands vitiated due to fraud can be used
beneficially for validation of her tribe claim. It is a
matter of record that committee after noticing fraud played
by father of petitioner issued him show cause notice dated
08.11.2019 and a detailed notice dated 11.07.2022 as to why
his Tribe Validation shall not be cancelled being vitiated
by fraud.
10. Mr. Vibhute would urge that the Committee has no power
to review its own decision. Therefore, the validity
4
certificates issued in favour of the father and uncle of the
petitioner as well as other relatives are subsisting as on
date hence the claim of the petitioner could not have been
negated. He relies upon the observations of this Court in
W.P. No. 5364 of 2023 between Rajesh Umbarje and others Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others dated 3.5.2023 to contend
that the Committee is not invested with the powers of review
and even if the Committee issues notices to the caste
validity holders, it cannot cancel the certificates. Mr.
Vibhute further submits that in present matter committee may
be directed to re-consider tl1e claim of the petitioner
along with the cases of her father and uncle which are
sought to be re-opened for fresh decision. He placed
reliance on the order in the matter of Hrushikesh Garud Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2022) 1 SCC 207. Mr. Vibhute would
further urge that in the similar circumstances, this court
directed the Scrutiny Committed to issue validity
certificate subject to decision in the proceeding re-opened
in respect of validity holders relied by the petitioner. He
placed his reliance on the order passed by this court in
W.P. No. 8432 of 2020 in the matter Aishwarya Modibayni Vs.
State of Maharashtra.
11. Although, petitioner relies on the various judgments
passed by this Court where directions are given to issue
validity certificates subject to final outcome of the
inquiry in the re-opened caste validity certificates of the
relatives, in the facts of the present case, we are not
inclined to pass such order, since we are of the considered
view that the present case is a glaring example of patent
fraud on constitution. The affidavits. tendered by the
petitioner and her father stating that none from their
family member had suffered invalidation of the tribe claim,
clearly shows their dishonest intention. The petitioner
cannot draw premium over the fraud practiced by her father
and other blood relatives when the validity certificates
relied by her are under cloud of doubts and obtained
fraudulently and hence, the committee is justified in
rejecting claim of the petitioner.
12. So far as the issue as to whether the Committee has
power to review its own decisions is concerned, true it is
that division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rakesh
Umbarje (Supra) has taken a view that the Committee has no
powers to review its own decision. In the present case we
are not dealing with that issue, but are concerned with the
case of obvious fraud. What we notice in this case is that
petitioner’s tribe for ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe is
based on validity issued to her father and uncle in the year
2007. The Committee has rightly observed that the fact of
earlier invalidation of Tribe claim suffered by the father
and uncle of the petitioner in the year 1989 which was
confirmed by the appellate authority in the year 1991, was
suppressed by them while obtaining subsequent validity
certificate from a different committee. In that view of the
matter without waiting for the fate of the proceeding after
re-opening of the caste validity of the father of the
petitioner, we are inclined to reject the petition and
5
confirm the impugned order as in facts of this case
impeccable material is available to depict apparent fraud.
13. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed.”
16. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant
is here before this Court with the present appeal.
17. We heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap
Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the State of
Maharashtra and Mr. C. George Thomas, the learned counsel
appearing for the University.
18. At the outset, we may say that the High Court committed
no error, much less any error of law, in passing the
impugned judgment and order. In fact, the High Court has
rightly come down very heavily on the father of the
appellant.
19. The High Court also very correctly took notice of the
fact that the earlier invalidation of the tribe claim
suffered by the father and uncle of the appellant herein
respectively in the year 1989 came to be affirmed by the
appellate authority in the year 1991 and this fact was
suppressed while obtaining a validity certificate for the
appellant from a different committee.
20. The matter presents before us a precarious situation.
Here is a case where the appellant a meritorious student
otherwise, has completed her MBBS course and is now pursuing
6
her PG Course. If we dismiss this appeal, that will be the
end of her entire career.
21. We are conscious of the fact that equity should follow
the law. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, we thought fit to grant one opportunity to the
appellant keeping only one thing in mind, i.e., her career
and her life. One and all are responsible for this and we
hold the father of the appellant more responsible for
creating this imbroglio.
22. The suppression of material facts, at the end of the
father, ultimately put his own daughter in difficulty.
23. At this stage, we must look into the order passed by
this Court dated 28.11.2023, the same reads thus:-
“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the Caste
Validity Certificates granted to her father (Sanjay
Vithalrao Palekar) and her uncle (Rajiv Vithalrao
Palekar). In both the cases, Caste Validity
Certificate was refused in the earlier proceedings.
Prima facie, it appears to us after perusing the
orders passed in their favour of grant of Caste
Validity Certificates that the fact of rejection of
earlier applications was suppressed by the
petitioner’s father and uncle. The petitioner’s
father (Sanjay Vithalrao palekar) has filed an
undertaking on oath dated 23rd November, 2023
giving up his claim that he belongs to Mannervarlu,
Scheduled Tribe. The undertaking is taken on
record.
As the observations which may be made by this Court
may affect the father and uncle of the petitioner,
we direct the petitioner to implead both father and
uncle as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.
The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner
accepts notice issued to the father of the
7
petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondent No.6 returnable on
29th January, 2024.
We direct the petitioner to place on record the
documents which are tendered across the Bar along
with an application.
In view of the undertaking given by the
petitioner’s father (fifth respondent), the Caste
Validity Certificate granted to him by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee on 31st January, 2007 is hereby
cancelled.
Even the petitioner has made a statement that she
will not claim any benefit of the said Caste.
It is pointed out across the Bar that the
petitioner has completed MBBS Degree Course and has
also completed her internship.
We, therefore, direct that pending this petition,
it will be open for the University to issue a
Degree Certificate to the petitioner in accordance
with law.”
24. In pursuance of the order, referred to above, the
father of the appellant has filed an undertaking before this
Court, which reads thus:-
“UNDERTAKING
I, Sanjiv Vithalrao Palekar, Son of Vithalrao Palekar,
aged 53 years, residing at Lecturer Colony, Vasant Nagar,
Nanded, Tal and District Nanded do hereby state on solemn
affirmation as under:
I say that I have perused the order dated 20/11/2023
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid SLP
filed by my daughter Kum. Chaitainya and state in
unequivocal terms that henceforth, I shall not claim any
benefits as belonging to Mannervarlu, Scheduled Tribe
based upon certificate of validity issued to me by the
competent caste scrutiny committee. I thus, give up my
claim as belonging to Mannevarlu, scheduled tribe.
In so far as grant of validity certificate to my real
elder brother namely Shri Rajiv Palekar is concerned I
say that I made fervent request to execute similar
Undertaking so as to present the same before this Hon’ble
Court. However, because of long-drawn inter-se family
dispute, he is not cooperating in any manner with my
family.
8
In these circumstances, I pray this Hon’ble Court with
folded hands to protect Degree of MBBS which has been
completed by my daughter Kum. Chaitanya in the year
2021.”
25. As noted above, the appellant has secured admission in
the PG course in the general category. Her academic career
appears to be quite good.
26. Having regard to the fact that the father has filed an
undertaking that his daughter will never seek any benefit on
the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and the
father has also given an undertaking that no one in the
family would seek any benefit of being members of the
Scheduled Tribe, we regularise her admission in the MBBS
Course.
27. By order dated 28.11.2023, the University was also
directed to issue a Degree Certificate to the appellant
herein. The Degree Certificate issued shall be final.
28. With all that we have observed as aforesaid, one
thought is still haunting our mind, and i.e., that one
eligible meritorious candidate from the Scheduled Tribe
category lost the opportunity to pursue the MBBS course.
29. For the aforesaid, the father of the appellant must
compensate in terms of money.
30. We direct the father of the appellant to deposit an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) with the
9
National Defence Fund within a period of two months from
today.
31. Post this matter once again, after two months to report
compliance of our directions to deposit the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only).
32. Had the Committee undertaken the necessary verification
expeditiously and would have declared that the appellant
does not fall within the Scheduled Tribe then probably
nothing further would have occurred in the matter.
33. In view of the aforesaid, we partly allow the appeal in
the terms indicated hereinabove. Our present order, needless
to say, will supersede the High Court Order. The net result
is the appellant will not claim the status of “Mannervarlu”
Scheduled Tribe ever in future. However, only her MBBS
admission is regularised. On all other aspects, the High
Court judgment is confirmed.
34. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………….J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
……………….J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi
25th August, 2025.
10
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25192/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
24-07-2023 in WP No. 8531/2022 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad]
CHAITANYA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.232621/2023-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.
Date : 25-08-2025 This petition was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sudhanshu S Choudhari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R K Mendarkar, Adv.
Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Mr. Yash Singhania, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Kartikey, Adv.
Ms. Gayatri Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR
11
Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii, AOR
Mr. Giridhar Gopal Bhansali, Adv.
Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR
Mr. Narendar Rao Thaneer, Adv.
Ms. Drishti Narbar, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Divya Dokka, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed
order, which is placed on the file.
3. The relevant part of the signed order is as under:-
“We direct the father of the appellant to
deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five lakh only) with the National Defence
Fund within a period of two months from
today.
31. Post this matter once again, after two
months to report compliance of our
directions to deposit the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only).
32. Had the Committee undertaken the
necessary verification expeditiously and
would have declared that the appellant does
not fall within the Scheduled Tribe then
probably nothing further would have
occurred in the matter.
12
33. In view of the aforesaid, we partly
allow the appeal in the terms indicated
hereinabove. Our present order, needless to
say, will supersede the High Court Order.
The net result is the appellant will not
claim the status of “Mannervarlu” Scheduled
Tribe ever in future. However, only her
MBBS admission is regularised. On all other
aspects, the High Court judgment is
confirmed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
13
[ad_1]
Source link