Patna HC Quashes Mukhiya's Ouster, Finds Bihar Act 15 of 2003 Inapplicable to Panchayat Elections
Patna High Court set aside the removal of a Mukhiya whose ancestors migrated from Uttar Pradesh 125 years ago, ruling that Bihar's reservation amendment does not govern Panchayat seat reservations and that neither the Caste Scrutiny Committee nor the State Election Commission could lawfully apply it to oust him.
Justice Partha Sarthy, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Patna, has set aside both the proceedings of the General Committee (Caste Scrutiny Committee) dated 28 March 2025 and the order of the State Election Commission, Bihar dated 25 June 2025 that had removed Md. Isa from the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Sahuria in Saharsa district. The court found that the authorities had wrongly applied the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2003 — Bihar Act 15 of 2003 — to elections for the post of Mukhiya, which are in fact governed by the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The judgment also records that no authority ever cancelled or even recommended cancellation of Md. Isa's caste certificate, and that the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself never concluded that he did not belong to the Teli (Muslim) caste.
The Complaint and the Disputed Election
Md. Isa, son of Md. Shams-ul Haque, resident of Village Tarha, Ward No. 12, Sugma, Police Station Banma Itihari, District Saharsa, was elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Sahuria in the 2021 Panchayat elections. The seat was reserved for members of the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category.
Respondent No. 9, Subhash Kumar, filed a complaint before the State Election Commission under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The complaint, registered as Case No. 56 of 2023, alleged that Md. Isa actually belonged to the Sheikh community and had fraudulently obtained an EBC caste certificate from the Circle Officer, Banma Itihari, by falsely claiming membership of the Teli (Muslim) caste.
A caste certificate dated 2 February 2016 had been issued by the competent authority certifying Md. Isa as belonging to Teli (Muslim) caste. That certificate was never cancelled at any stage of the proceedings.
The Two Caste Scrutiny Reports and Where They Diverged
On directions from the Criminal Investigation Department (Weaker Section), a three-member Enquiry Committee was constituted on 18 March 2024. Its members were police officers: the Additional Superintendent of Police (Administration), a Police Inspector, and a Police Sub-Inspector. The committee visited Md. Isa's residence, made enquiries from neighbours, co-villagers, relatives, and public representatives, and sent the caste certificate to the Circle Officer, Banma Itihari for verification. The Circle Officer's office confirmed, through the Revenue Karamchari and Revenue Officer, that the certificate had been issued after proper enquiry and that Md. Isa belonged to Teli (Muslim) caste. The committee submitted its report on 31 December 2024, signed by all three members, confirming the caste certificate as genuine.
Md. Isa was served with a copy of this report along with letter No. 2319 dated 7 February 2025, asking him to respond. He filed his reply on 4 March 2025. Thereafter, a differently constituted General Committee (Caste Scrutiny Committee) — comprising the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, the Deputy Secretary (Weaker Section and EBC), Welfare Department, and the Additional Secretary, General Administration Department — met on 28 March 2025 and produced a second report communicated through Memo No. 6574 dated 11 April 2025.
This second report did not find that Md. Isa belonged to some other caste. Nor did it cancel or recommend cancellation of the caste certificate. Instead, it held that since Md. Isa's ancestors had migrated from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, and the petitioner had produced only a hibbanama of 1900 as documentary evidence, he was not entitled to the benefit of reservation under Bihar Act 15 of 2003, which bars candidates residing outside Bihar from claiming reservation.
The State Election Commission's Order
Acting on the second report, the State Election Commission passed an order in Case No. 56 of 2023 on 25 June 2025, communicated through Memo No. 2876 under the signature of the State Election Commissioner. The Commission held that Md. Isa was not an original resident of Bihar, was not entitled to reservation on the basis of what it termed an illegal caste certificate, and that his election as Mukhiya was therefore improper. His election was set aside in exercise of powers under Section 135 read with Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The Commission also recommended action against the Circle Officer, Banma Itihari and the concerned Revenue Karamchari for issuing an incorrect caste certificate.
Petitioner's Submissions
Senior Advocate Mr. Amit Srivastava, appearing for Md. Isa along with Mr. Ranjeet Choubey and Mr. Siddharth Shankar Singh, argued that once the first Caste Scrutiny Committee report dated 31 December 2024 confirmed the caste of the petitioner as genuine, clause 4(kha) of the General Administration Department resolution dated 5 February 2014 (Memo No. 1567) required the matter to rest there. The Supreme Court's direction in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, was cited to the same effect: where the report is in favour of the candidate and found genuine, no further action need be taken.
The petitioner further argued that re-entering the question of caste after a favourable finding was beyond jurisdiction, that Bihar Act 15 of 2003 did not govern Panchayat election reservations, and that, in any event, a person whose ancestors had lived in Bihar for more than 125 years across three to four generations could not be called a person “residing out of the State of Bihar.”
Respondents' Submissions
Counsel for the State Election Commission, Mr. Ravi Ranjan, contended that because the character of the documents was not unimpeachable, the matter had rightly been referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee as the apex fact-finding body under Kumari Madhuri Patil. He relied on Bihar Act 15 of 2003 and submitted that since the petitioner's ancestors were from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, he was not entitled to reservation under that Act. He cited Mari Chandrashekhar v. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Bindu Devi v. State of Bihar, 2024 (2) PLJR 103.
Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, appearing for respondent No. 9, pressed Section 4 of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act, 1991 as amended by Bihar Act 15 of 2003, and argued that the State Election Commission had rightly removed Md. Isa. He cited Manoj Prasad v. State Election Commission (Panchayat), 2023 (4) PLJR 6, Pooja Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2024 (1) PLJR 391, Khushboo Ara v. State of Bihar, 2023 (3) PLJR 560 and Bindu Devi v. State of Bihar, 2024 (3) BLJ 714.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Partha Sarthy first addressed whether the second Caste Scrutiny Committee report was a review of the first. The court noted that the two committees had entirely different compositions: the first comprised police officers constituted on CID directions, while the second was chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department. They were therefore distinct bodies, and the second report could not be characterised as a review of the first.
The court then examined what the second committee actually said. It had not found that Md. Isa did not belong to Teli (Muslim) caste. It had not cancelled the caste certificate. The sole reason for denying the benefit of reservation was residency under Bihar Act 15 of 2003. Yet the second committee's report failed to engage with the entire body of evidence gathered by the first committee — statements of villagers, neighbours, relatives, public representatives and the Circle Officer's verification — and instead treated the hibbanama of 1900 as the only piece of evidence on record. The court found this a clear error.
On the pivotal statutory question, the court laid out the governing framework in detail. Reservation for the post of Mukhiya is provided under Section 15(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Section 2(b) of that Act defines “Backward Classes” by reference to Annexure 1 of the Act of 1991 — but only for the purpose of identifying which castes qualify, not for the residency conditions attached to posts and services. The Act of 1991, and the third proviso inserted into Section 4(2) by Bihar Act 15 of 2003 barring candidates “residing out of the State of Bihar,” applies to vacancies in posts and services under the State, not to Panchayat elections. Reservation for the Mukhiya post is governed by the Panchayat Raj Act alone. Applying Bihar Act 15 of 2003 to disqualify a person from contesting a Panchayat election was therefore legally incorrect.
On the residency point, the court went further. Even if the Act of 1991 were applicable, its third proviso speaks of candidates “residing out of the State of Bihar.” Md. Isa's own respondents accepted that his ancestors moved from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh to Bihar approximately 125 years ago, three to four generations back. The court held that a person whose family has resided in Bihar for more than a century cannot, by any stretch, be described as a person residing outside Bihar. The third proviso also does not use the phrase “original resident,” a requirement the authorities had read into it without textual basis.
The court distinguished the cases relied on by the respondents. In Bindu Devi, the petitioner had herself moved to Bihar on marriage from Uttar Pradesh and sought OBC reservation that Bihar does not extend to her category — facts wholly different from an individual whose family has been in Bihar for 125 years. In Manoj Prasad, the Caste Scrutiny Committee positively found that the petitioner did not belong to the caste he had claimed; no such finding existed against Md. Isa. In Khushboo Ara, the Committee found the petitioner belonged to Sheikh caste, which is not under EBC; again, no comparable finding was made here.
As for the State Election Commission's direction to proceed against the Circle Officer and Revenue Karamchari, the court found it equally unsustainable. The Commission could only have based that direction on a Caste Scrutiny Committee finding that the caste certificate was issued incorrectly. No such finding existed: the first committee had confirmed the certificate as genuine, and the second had not found it fraudulent either. Recommending disciplinary action against the issuing officers in the absence of any supporting finding by the apex fact-finding body was an error on the Commission's part.
Outcome
The court allowed the writ application. The proceedings of the General Committee (Caste Scrutiny Committee) dated 28 March 2025 as communicated through Memo No. 6574 dated 11 April 2025 were set aside. The order of the State Election Commission, Bihar dated 25 June 2025 passed in Case No. 56 of 2023 (Subhash Kumar v. Md. Isa), communicated through Memo No. 2876, was also set aside. The judgment was pronounced on 14 August 2026, with the CAV date recorded as 9 July 2026.