Election Tribunal Cannot Scrutinise Caste Certificate Validity, Rules Allahabad High Court in Ram Kola Assembly Dispute
Dismissing a 2022 election petition targeting the Ram Kola MLA's SC certificate, the Allahabad High Court held that only State-constituted Scrutiny Committees, not Election Tribunals, can validate or invalidate caste certificates.
Justice Neeraj Tiwari, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed an election petition challenging the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election result from the 335 Ram Kola constituency in Kushinagar district. The petitioner, Radha Charan, alleged that the returned candidate Vinay Prakash Gond had fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate despite belonging to the Other Backward Class. The court, after recording evidence and hearing parties at length, addressed a preliminary issue agreed upon by both sides: whether the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare a caste certificate forged or invalid. It answered that question in the negative, holding that the power to validate or invalidate a caste certificate vests exclusively in the District, Divisional, and State Level Committees constituted by the State Government, not in any Election Tribunal.
The 2022 Ram Kola Election Dispute
The Election Commission of India notified the 2022 U.P. Legislative Assembly elections on 4 February 2022. The 335 Ram Kola Assembly Constituency was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Nominations were accepted between 5 and 11 February 2022, with scrutiny between 12 and 14 February 2022. Polling took place on 3 March 2022 and counting on 10 March 2022, with the election completing on 20 March 2022.
Multiple candidates filed nominations, including Radha Charan (the petitioner) and Vinay Prakash Gond. Gond contested on the basis of an SC certificate dated 30 August 2012. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Returning Officer on 14 February 2022, alleging the SC certificate was fraudulently obtained and seeking cancellation of Gond's nomination. The Returning Officer rejected the complaint. Gond was ultimately declared the returned candidate.
The election petition filed before the High Court sought a declaration that Gond's election as MLA from Ram Kola constituency be set aside and declared null and void. The sole ground was that Gond, who the petitioner claimed belongs to OBC, had obtained the SC certificate fraudulently.
Gond, in his written submissions, denied the allegations. He contended that under the Government Order dated 3 December 1987, the “Gond Caste” is included in the SC list and the “Kahar Caste” in the OBC list, and that he belongs to Gond Caste. He also stated that his SC certificate had been subjected to scrutiny by the District Level Committee, which found it genuine. Importantly, Gond acknowledged that his certificate remained under challenge before the District Level Committee but had not been cancelled by any authority.
The Framed Issues and the Jurisdictional Question
The petition had a lengthy procedural history. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and rejected on 29 July 2024. The court then framed six issues on 18 September 2024, covering: whether the nomination was properly accepted; whether the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the caste certificate forged; whether the certificate was forged or fake; whether the certificate was valid on the date of the election; consequences arising from the fact that the certificate used in the election was dated 13 March 2018 while the election petition annexed one dated 30 August 2012; and reliefs and costs.
Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses were recorded and concluded on 3 April 2026. On 27 April 2026, given the undisputed position that the SC certificate had never been cancelled by the District Level Committee or any other authorised authority, both parties agreed that issue no. 2 — the jurisdictional question — should be decided first. The matter was heard on 14 May 2026 and reserved for judgment.
The petitioner's counsel argued that Sections 36(2)(a), 100(1)(a), 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(2)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 vest the Election Tribunal with sufficient power to examine the genuineness of every document submitted with nomination papers before the Returning Officer, including a caste certificate, even where its validity is pending before the District Level Committee. He relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment in Ramlal Kol v. Moti Kashyap, AIR 2014 NOC 529 (MP), and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Anandra Vithoba Adsul, 2021 LawSuit (Bom) 650.
Counsel for Gond contended that the State Government had issued a self-contained framework through Government Orders of 5 January 1996, 27 January 2011, and 28 February 2011, establishing the District Level Committee, Divisional Level Committee, and State Level Committee in a hierarchy for verifying and scrutinising caste certificates. The State Level Committee's decision is final within that hierarchy. He submitted that the Election Tribunal has no authority to verify the validity of a duly issued caste certificate. He relied on a series of Supreme Court and High Court judgments including Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, 2012 (1) SCC 333; Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, 1994 SCC (6) 241; Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal Nos. 2741–2743 of 2024; and A. Raja v. D. Kumar, 2025 INSC 62.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Tiwari examined each judgment cited by both sides in sequence.
On the petitioner's primary reliance on Ramlal Kol (MP HC), the court found it of no assistance. The Madhya Pradesh judgment had turned on whether a certificate was genuinely issued at all. In the present case, there was no dispute that the SC certificate had been duly issued by the competent authority. The Returning Officer had no occasion to question it unless it was first cancelled or annulled by the authority empowered to do so.
The Anandra Vithoba Adsul judgment relied upon by the petitioner was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court had inadvertently undertaken an erroneous exercise of appreciating evidence under Article 226 and engaged in a roving inquiry not sanctioned by settled legal position. It further held that adjudication on documents falls solely within the domain of the Scrutiny Committee, which is “an expert forum armed with fact finding authority.” That judgment therefore operated against the petitioner.
The court traced the doctrinal lineage from Kumari Madhuri Patil onwards. In that case, the Supreme Court had framed detailed guidelines for the issuance and scrutiny of social status certificates, requiring every State Government to constitute a three-officer committee, directing that the committee's order be final and conclusive subject only to proceedings under Article 226, and explicitly stating that no suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. The court noted that guideline 14 further provided that if a certificate is found false, the candidate's conviction on prosecution could be treated as a disqualification for elective posts, legislatures, and Parliament — but that determination also flows from the Scrutiny Committee process, not from an Election Tribunal.
In Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, the Supreme Court had elaborated on the Scrutiny Committee's functions, including the mandatory role of a Vigilance Cell whose report forms the basis for issuance or cancellation of a certificate. The court in the present matter noted that this further reinforced the exclusive character of the committee's jurisdiction.
The Allahabad High Court's own earlier decisions in Hizwana Bano v. State of U.P. and Jai Prakash Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. had also taken the same view: validity and invalidity of a caste certificate falls within the Scrutiny Committee's domain, not that of revenue officers or civil courts. In Jai Prakash Chaurasiya, this court had explicitly held that the Kumari Madhuri Patil guidelines, though originally framed in the context of educational admissions, apply equally in election matters.
The Bombay High Court's judgment in Vishwanath v. Dr. Kalge Shivaji Bandappa, 2024:BHC-AUG:21373, added that where a returned candidate holds a caste certificate and a caste validity certificate granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Election Tribunal cannot entertain a petition seeking a declaration that the candidate does not belong to the claimed caste, since the Scrutiny Committee has exclusive jurisdiction to determine caste certificate validity.
The final and most directly applicable precedent was A. Raja v. D. Kumar, 2025 INSC 62, decided by the Supreme Court. In that case, arising from a Kerala Legislative Assembly election, the Supreme Court held: “A duly issued Caste/Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition.” Where no statute governs the field in a State, the Madhuri Patil guidelines as modified in Dayaram apply.
Drawing these threads together, the court held that the guidelines from Kumari Madhuri Patil apply in election matters in Uttar Pradesh. The State Government has constituted District, Regional, and State Level Committees through its Government Orders for the exclusive purpose of scrutinising caste certificates. The Election Tribunal sits outside that hierarchy entirely. It has no authority to verify, scrutinise, or declare invalid a caste certificate issued by a competent authority, unless and until that certificate is cancelled through the prescribed committee process.
In the present case, the SC certificate issued to Gond had never been cancelled by the District Level Committee or any other authorised body. The challenge remained pending before that committee. The Election Tribunal therefore had no basis to declare the certificate forged or to set aside the election on that ground.
Outcome
Justice Tiwari answered issue no. 2 against the petitioner, holding that the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to declare the caste certificate forged or invalid. Since the entire election petition rested on the sole ground that the returned candidate had obtained the SC certificate fraudulently, and that ground could not be agitated before the Election Tribunal, the petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed on 6 July 2026. No order as to costs was made.