Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Order Rejecting Migrant Candidate's Nomination Form On Ground Of Not Submitting State Caste Certificate

Justice Vivek Rusia observed, “The General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh issued a Circular dated 13.01.2014 to all Sub Divisional Officers, Collector, and Divisional Commissioner in respect of the issuance of caste certificate. Clause 8.11(iii) deals with the issuance of caste certificates, according to which as per Order No.BC16014/1/82-SC&BCD-1 dated 06.08.1994 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the facility of the reservation shall be available in the same State from where the caste certificate is issued. The State Government has clarified that the facility of the reservation shall not be available in the State of Madhya Pradesh in absence of the caste certificate issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh.”

The court observed that the Supreme Court in Action Committee v/s Union of India & Another had said that in case of migrants of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe in the other states, the benefit of caste would be available to those who migrated before 1950 to the other State.

"Admittedly, the petitioner migrated in the year 1998 from the State of Rajasthan to Madhya Pradesh after her marriage, therefore, she is not entitled to contest the election on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of the State of Rajasthan. Hence, respondent No.2 rightly rejected her nomination form and learned District Judge committed no error in dismissing the Election Petition, hence, no interference is called," the court said. 

As per the factual matrix of the case, the election for the post of Mayor in Ujjain Municipal Corporation was held in August 2015 and results were declared. The petitioner belonged to 'Bairwa' caste which is a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan and she possessed a caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe issued by the Competent Authority in Rajasthan. However, in 1998, she got married and since then, she has been residing in Ujjain. Thus, became a permanent resident and voter of Ujjain. The petitioner submitted her nomination form for election along with all necessary documents.

However, Respondent No. 2/Election Officer rejected the nomination form of the petitioner stating that her form was not supported by the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an election petition. However, the district judge dismissed the election petition by holding that the nomination paper of the petitioner had rightly been rejected.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 'Bairwa' caste is a Scheduled Tribe in Madhya Pradesh as well as in Rajasthan, therefore, Election Officer had illegally rejected her nomination form, which deprived her of contesting the election on the post of Mayor. The Counsel further referred to Section 24-A (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 and contended that the Election Officer is not authorized to reject the nomination form, therefore, rejection of the nomination of the petitioner was illegal.

The counsel for M.P. State Election Commission submitted that as per guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India in 2015, the Election Officer is competent to scrutinize the nomination paper and is authorized to reject the nomination paper, in case any fault is found. Since the petitioner did not submit the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, her nomination was rightly rejected.

After hearing both the parties, the Court referred to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and noted that the petitioner did not possess the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Madhya Pradesh which debars her from contesting the election.

With regard to the validity of the rejection of a nomination paper by the Election Officer, the Court referred to sub-rule (6) of Rule 28 which authorises the Returning Officer to reject the nomination form by recording its reasons. Therefore, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Returning Officer is not competent to reject the nomination paper.

Thereafter, the Court referred to a circular issued by General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh which provides that the facility of the reservation shall be available in the same State from where the caste certificate is issued.

It thus dismissed the plea. 

Case Title: Smt. Preeti Gehlod Versus M.P. State Election Commission And Others, Civil Revision No. 574 Of 2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 76

Click Here To Read/Download Order