Sudhir Vilas Kalel and Others Vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel and Others

Honorable Supreme Court of India'

Key Points Covered by the Case:

• Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959
• No-Confidence Motions in Village Panchayats
• Requirement of Validity Certificate for contesting election from reserved seats in Maharashtra
• Mandatory Vs. Directory Legislation
• Temporary Extension Act, 2023

Laws involved:

• The Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act of 2000
• The Maharashtra Caste Certificate Rules of 2012
• The Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959
• The Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act of 2023

As Local Self-Government comes under the State List, every state has its own laws, rules, and procedures for elections, working, and composition of Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, and Zilla Parishads. According to the Constitution, Part IX of Panchayati Raj mandates that seats in each of the above levels are to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and the states can reserve further seats for the Backward Class of citizens.

Every state has its own act governing the issuance of caste certificates and the procedure for it. Maharashtra does so through the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, wherein one needs to have both the Caste Certificate and a Validity Certificate to give finality to the former. Only then can one claim benefits provided by the State. One of the most important of these is the benefit of reserved seats in elections, allowing only eligible candidates to contest from reserved seats.

In Maharashtra, seats are reserved in the following manner:

• 50% of Total Seats for Women
• 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBC) (50% Women)
• Percentage of SC/ST Population out of Total Population (50% Women)

Sudhir Vilas Kalel who belonged to a caste coming under OBC category had a Caste Certificate issued to him in 2013 itself, but applied for Validity Certificate just on the day of filing his nomination papers for contesting as a member of panchayat on 30th December 2020, which is allowed by the Panchayat Act, but non-compliance with deadlines triggers retrospective disqualification as a member of panchayat, thus affecting the majority required for passing a No-Confidence Motion against a Sarpanch which is 3/4th of the members entitled to sit and vote. There are many intricacies involved in this so let's look into them!

Overview:
The case primarily talks about the validity of setting aside of a No Confidence Motion against a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat (Maharashtra State, thus Maharashtra Panchayat Act applicable) whereby such setting aside was possible because a certain majority was not achieved and such majority could have been achieved had a member of the Panchayat been disqualified on the contentions of him not fulfilling certain condition to contest and get elected from a reserved seat.

The condition being that for a person to contest elections from a reserved category seat he has to submit a caste certificate and in addition to that a validity certificate authorizing the finality of the caste certificate (Section 10A-1 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959[5] Panchayat Act). These documents are to be submitted on or before the last day for filing nomination papers for contesting elections.

Once a person has a Caste Certificate then he has to apply for a Validity Certificate well in time to a Scrutiny Committee (to be formed by Maharashtra Government for such purpose, under Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000[2]). The Panchayat Act however gives compensation to candidates who have applied for validity certificate on or before last date for nomination papers for contesting elections, to contest elections on the condition that if such a candidate emerges victorious in the elections then he must submit the validity certificate within 12 months of his election date.

If he fails in doing so, then his election is terminated retrospectively and he is disqualified of such post. This concession of 12 months is considering the pendency of application before Scrutiny Committee, and thus when a person contests election relying on such concession, he ought to have fulfilled the condition during the concession period.

The intention of legislation is to allow eligible persons to claim benefit of contesting through reserved seat, and the eligibility is that the person has a caste certificate as well as a Validity Certificate. Thus the contention that there is nothing in the control of the applicant and thus such time limit of 12 months is directory and not mandatory goes against the intention of the legislation, as there are clear indications that the said provision is mandatory as it uses the word 'shall' and it also provides for consequences for non-compliance. (Proviso 1 of Section 10-1A of Panchayat Act - ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of twelve months from the date on which he is declared elected, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee: Provided further that if such person fails to produce the Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months from the date on which he is declared elected, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a member.").

The situation here was that there was a no-confidence motion moved against the Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat where there were 11 members and for no confidence motion to be cleared it must have a majority of 75% thus 9 of the 11 (82%) members must vote in favour of the motion for it to be cleared, but only 8 out of the 11 members voted in favour thus setting aside the motion, but the member who had contested election on the concession of 12 months for submitting the Validity Certificate had failed to do so thus he was retrospectively terminated as elected and disqualified as the member of the panchayat from the election day itself.

Thus making the total of members as 10 and thus 8 voted in favour (80%) thus passing the no-confidence motion. The motion was set aside and prayer for declaring the motion as passed and cleared and directing the Sarpanch to stop exercising all the powers, functions and duties was made to Bombay High Court.

Further, the contention of the disqualified member was that the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 was applicable to him where in Section 3 of Temporary Extension Act, 2023 provides that a person who was elected for Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis through elections held on or after 1st Jan 2021 and who had contested on tentative caste certificate i.e. applied for validity certificate and whose application was not rejected would be given another 12 months of extension from the date of commencement of the extension act i.e. 12 months from 10th July 2023.

Going back a little in the case of Mandakani Kachru Kokane Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors[3] of 2021, the judgement of said case laid down certain guidelines or directions to be followed by all District Caste Scrutiny Committees and concerned successful candidates who availed the concession, whereby the successful candidate had to notify the committee within two weeks that he had been elected and thus the scrutiny committee would have to formulate a plan for scrutiny of the caste certificate and reject or validate the application within 8 months of the intimation.

The court directed that all the committees in the state shall be circulated a copy of the judgement essentially informing them of the guidelines or directions. In addition to that the original period of intimation by elected candidate was one week and additional one week was given through the above directions. These directions were provided on 27th Oct 2020.

When the disqualified member had applied for the Validity certificate on the day of his filing nomination papers (30th December 2020) he was issued a receipt which appears as "I have been informed that, within seven days (of declaration of results of the elections) will file declaration otherwise the matter should be closed."

The elections were held on 18th Jan 2021 and results were declared on 21st Jan 2021 (Thus coming under the purview of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023). The directions given under the Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra) were also applicable to the candidate as it was declared on 27th Oct 2020 i.e. before 30th Dec 2020. The said member failed to notify the committee with declaration that he has been elected successfully.

Thus not fulfilling something which was in his control. On 01-03/04/2021 the District Caste Certificate Verification Committee published a notification giving list of candidates who had not submitted the declaration of them being elected or not and hence there application had been rejected as it was a personal responsibility of the applicant to rectify any objections raised by the Scrutiny Committee and an incomplete application may be rejected by recording reasons (Rule 17(2),(3)[4]).

Thus the application being rejected and not falling under the purview of the Temporary Extension Act,2023 which only allows applications pending on 10th July 2023. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court judgment declaring the No-Confidence Motion to cleared and passed and directed the Sarpanch to stop exercising all powers, functions and duties and directed election of Sarpanch.

End Notes:

• Civil Appeal No. 1776 of 2024 @ SLP (C) No. 23017 of 2023, Supreme Court of India.
• Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
• Mandakani Kachru Kokane alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2021 (3) Mh.L.J.221]
• Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes & Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012
• The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959
• Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023