Bombay HC’s larger Bench to settle if caste scrutiny committees have power to recall orders based on fraud

The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether caste scrutiny committees under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, can recall their own orders if caste validity certificates were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. 

The referral was made by a Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on August 4, 2025. The court was hearing petitions filed by Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe, and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe, all residents of Jamb village in Nanded district, who challenged the cancellation of their caste validity certificates by the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, headquartered at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 

The committee revoked their certificates on May 15, 2025, citing fraud and suppression of relevant facts. 

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar, argued that scrutiny committees do not have the statutory authority to review or recall their decisions. They relied on judgments such as Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje v. State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra, where the High Court had held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio and that only the High Court under Article 226 can interfere. 

Additional Government pleaders S.P. Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi argued that scrutiny committees must retain the power to recall certificates obtained by fraud, even if such power is not expressly provided in the 2000 Act. They cited judgments including Rajeshwar Baburao Bone, where the High Court and Supreme Court upheld a committee’s decision to cancel a fraudulently obtained certificate. The State maintained that fraud vitiates every legal act and cannot be protected by procedural limitations. 

After hearing the argument, the Bench noted that different Benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue and observed that while excessive use of recall powers could destabilize settled rights, preventing scrutiny committees from correcting fraudulent outcomes would undermine the integrity of the validation process. 

It noted that scrutiny committees have quasi-judicial powers and are better positioned than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 

“But, that in itself cannot be the basis to hold that in no circumstances can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its inherent power of recalling its earlier order, which has been obtained on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It cannot be countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases,” the court order said.  

It is also relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee is better equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it has some powers akin to those of a civil court, as compared to this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it added.   

The purity of the process, once found to be polluted has to be dealt with and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration that need to be authoritatively settled by a larger Bench of this Court, the Bench observed.  

“Hence, we take recourse to Rule 9(A) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to formulate questions to be answered by a larger bench in the light of apparent conflict in the aforementioned views of various division benches of this Court.” 

The court has asked five questions:   

(i) Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? 

(ii) Being a creature of the statute i.e. the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee does not have power of substantive review due to absence of any such provision under the said statute, but does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to recall its own order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? 

(iii) If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied so that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is avoided? 

(iv) Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking leave of the High Court, in the light of the stipulation in Section 7(2) of the Act of 2000? 

(v) Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), need to be revisited to the limited extent indicated above? 

The matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for constituting an appropriate larger bench to decide the issue. 

Published – August 07, 2025 06:48 am IST