Case at a glance: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a municipal councillor's challenge to the invalidation of her Kunbi (OBC) caste certificate and her consequent disqualification. It held that a Scrutiny Committee can direct a further Vigilance Cell report on a particular document, that Vigilance findings are not binding, and that once a certificate is invalidated the election is deemed terminated under Section 10(4).
The petitioner, holding a 2016 Kunbi (OBC) caste certificate, was elected councillor in a Municipal Council in December 2025. The losing candidate complained to the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, producing her father's school record showing “Hindu Maratha”, a genealogy and an affidavit.
The first Vigilance Cell report found the grandfather's 1932 record “in order”. After a hearing, the Committee directed the Vigilance Cell to re-examine that document, and the second report found re-writing, cancellation and change of ink. The Committee invalidated her claim in August 2026, and the Collector disqualified her as councillor.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the Scrutiny Committee seek a second Vigilance report and rely on it over the first, and should the matter be remanded on a newly produced document?
Vigilance Reports and Section 10(4)
The Court held that under Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Rules Vigilance findings are not binding, so the Committee has inherent power to direct a further report on a particular document. It had not discarded the whole first report, the petitioner had an opportunity to respond to both reports, and the Committee gave reasons for accepting the second. Ashwini Bhogam, which concerned wholesale discarding of a report without reasons, was distinguished.
Remand on an 1893 document produced for the first time was refused, as the Court found she had not come with clean hands. It also noted that the statutory appeal under Section 6B should ordinarily be availed of, and hoped the Government would frame SOPs and rules for the Appellate Authority. Under Section 10(4), once the certificate is invalidated the election is deemed terminated, so she cannot continue as councillor.
What the Court Actually Held
- The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The invalidation of the caste certificate and the disqualification stand.
- Vigilance findings are not binding on the Scrutiny Committee.
- The Court hoped the Government would frame SOPs and rules for Section 6B appeals.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies the Scrutiny Committee's power to seek further vigilance inquiry.
- It confirms the automatic consequence of invalidation for elected representatives.
- It flags the absence of procedural rules for OBC appeals under Section 6B.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- Ensure caste records are genuine and consistent across generations.
- Raise all documents before the Scrutiny Committee; late documents may not be considered.
For Complainants
- Point to specific defects in documents and seek targeted vigilance verification.
Key Takeaways
- Vigilance findings are not binding.
- A further report on one document is permissible.
- Remand on a new document refused.
- Election deemed terminated under Section 10(4).
Frequently Asked Questions
It found re-writing, cancellation and change of ink in the grandfather's 1932 record.
No. Under Section 10(4), invalidation deems the election terminated.
They should ordinarily be availed of, and it hoped the Government would frame SOPs and rules.
Conclusion
The judgment underlines the integrity of caste verification for reserved electoral seats.
Practical takeaway: A Scrutiny Committee may seek further verification of suspicious documents, and invalidation ends the elected term.