20 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In Ashish Balaji Sawant v/s Jalindar Tukaram Khaire & Others., a High Court petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to overturn an order from the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, dated May 14, 2024. This order invalidated the petitioner's caste claim.

The petitioner, who successfully contested an election for the post of Sarpanch against Respondent No.1, argued that the impugned order was passed without providing him an opportunity to be heard. He further contended that the Committee failed to properly consider old records, including evidence that his grandfather belonged to the Kunbi caste, and misconstrued Supreme Court precedents.

Conversely, Respondent No.1 asserted that the petitioner suppressed material facts and used forged documents. Evidence presented included the petitioner's school leaving certificate from 2013, which explicitly stated his caste as "Hindu Maratha." It was also highlighted that the petitioner's father applied for the registration of a Trust for the Maratha community, of which he is currently the president, with membership restricted to individuals of the Maratha community. Crucially, a school leaving certificate from 1982, allegedly belonging to the petitioner's father and relied upon to support the Kunbi caste claim, was found to be fabricated, with school records showing no admission or leaving certificate in his father's name. Furthermore, a caste validity certificate issued to the petitioner's cousin sister, also based on this forged document, was noted as having been accepted by only two of three committee members, with the dissenting member citing the forged nature of the father's certificate.

The High Court observed that the petitioner did not approach the court with "clean hands," noting contradictory statements regarding the opportunity of hearing. While the petitioner claimed no hearing was provided, he also admitted to multiple hearing dates. The Court emphasized that a party invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction must be truthful and disclose all material facts. The reliance by the petitioner on a previous judgment (Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale) was deemed misplaced, as that judgment allows for rejection of subsequent caste claims if an earlier certificate was obtained by fraud.

The Court ultimately concluded that the petitioner attempted to gain an undue advantage through a fraudulently obtained caste certificate, which it termed a "constitutional fraud" striking at the foundation of the affirmative action framework. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-, to be paid to the 'Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund' within four weeks.