Can Caste Scrutiny Committees Suo Motu Recall Their Own Orders Validating Caste Certificates? Bombay High Court Larger Bench To Decide

The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 4) referred to a larger bench to decide as to whether a Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) has powers to suo motu recall its own orders granting validity to caste certificates on the ground that it were vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. 

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade after noting differing views of various division benches on this very point, opined that there was a need to 'authoritatively' settle this issue through a larger bench. 

The questions, the judges referred to the larger bench are:

• 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?
• 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?
• 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?
• 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?
• Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje vs State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nagu Garud vs State of Maharashtra, need to be revisited to the limited extent indicated above?
  

The judges passed the order while hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the order dated May 15, 2025 passed by the district CSC recalling its earlier orders validating the caste certificates to the petitioners. The CSC exercised its 'inherent' powers and suo motu stating that the validation orders were obtained fraudulently by suppressing material facts etc. 

While referring to various differing judgments, the bench noted, "It is held that If a blanket power of recall is bestowed upon the Scrutiny Committee despite the fact that the Act of 2000 does not provide a power of review, there is a possibility of indiscriminate or rampant use of such power, which would destabilize and upset the claims of the individuals belonging to the same family. 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, the judges said, 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.

"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. 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. 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 bench said. 

With these observations, the bench urged the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench to decide the above mentioned questions.

Appearance: 

Advocates Pratap Jadhavar and RD Biradar appeared for the Petitioners.

Assistant Government Pleaders SP Sonpawale and Saie Joshi represented the State.

Case Title: Santosh Anil Kolhe vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 8316 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Order