The necessity for candidates contesting from reserved category seats in Maharashtra Panchayat elections to possess caste validity certificates was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements to prevent automatic disqualification from holding elected positions, the judgment underscores the significance of upholding the principles of social justice and representation.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan highlighted the significance of adhering to Section 10-1A of the 1959 Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which mandates the submission of these documents within a stipulated timeframe to avoid automatic disqualification.

The case in question involved a litigant who had successfully contested in the Jambulan village Gram Panchayat elections in 2020 from a seat reserved for Other Backward Castes (OBC). Despite being issued a caste certificate indicating membership in the Lonari caste—an OBC community—in 2013, the litigant failed to submit the requisite caste validity certificate in a timely manner.

Under Section 10-1A of the 1959 Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, candidates vying for reserved seats are required to furnish both caste and validity certificates at the time of filing nominations. This legislative mandate aims to ensure the authenticity of caste claims and uphold principles of social justice and representation.

The appellant's failure to comply with this statutory requirement led to retrospective disqualification from the panchayat post. Despite being elected in 2021, the appellant did not submit the caste validity certificate within the stipulated time frame, resulting in legal ramifications.

Echoing the legislative intent, the High Court emphasized that the mere filing of an application for a caste validity certificate is insufficient. Candidates must diligently pursue the validation process to substantiate their eligibility for reserved seats.

Moreover, the Supreme Court clarified that candidates cannot exploit procedural loopholes to circumvent the requirement for validity certificates. The appellant's inability to avail of time extensions under the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023, due to procedural lapses, further underscored the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply with statutory obligations. The judgment reinforces the principle that candidates aspiring for elected positions, particularly from reserved categories, must demonstrate utmost diligence in fulfilling legal requirements.

Representing the appellants, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, while Senior Advocate Vinay Navare and advocate Aniruddha Joshi appeared for the respondents.

Case: SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS. vs. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS. 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 23017 OF 2023).

Click to read/download Judgment.