The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition challenging the election of Congress MP Shivaji Kalge to the Lok Sabha. The court noted that the plea lacked essential legal details and failed to provide the necessary evidence to support the claims. The dismissal reinforces the validity of Kalge’s election. Further action on the matter remains unlikely.
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, the Indian National Congress candidate from Maharashtra’s Latur constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The petition, filed by Narsingrao Udgirkar of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, claimed that Kalge was ineligible to contest from the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) because he did not belong to the “Mala Jangam” SC as stated in his nomination papers.
However, Justice Arun R Pednekar dismissed the petition, stating that,
“It failed to meet the necessary legal requirements and was bereft of material particulars needed to support the claims. “
Another similar petition, filed by other candidates and a voter, which alleged fraudulent acquisition of Kalge’s caste certificates, also dismissed.
Justice Arun R Pednekar emphasized that the Caste Scrutiny Committee holds exclusive authority to validate caste certificates, and its determinations cannot be re-examined in an election petition unless there are allegations of fraud or that the certificate issued by an incompetent authority.
He referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Animul Haque Laskar & Ors., (2024) 4 S.C.R. 523, reiterating that the court would not make an alternative determination on the caste status unless fraud or improper issuance is proven.
The judgment stated,
“The Caste Scrutiny Committee has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the caste status of an individual… this Court in the election petition would not render alternate finding… unless it is shown that the caste certificate was not issued by a competent authority or is vitiated by fraud,”
Narsingrao Udgirkar’s petition argued that Shivaji Bandappa Kalge did not belong to the “Mala Jangam” Scheduled Caste but instead to the Hindu Jangam caste, classified as Other Backward Class (OBC).
Udgirkar alleged that Kalge’s caste certificate, issued by an executive magistrate, improperly accepted without proper verification by the vigilance committee, making Kalge ineligible for the reserved SC seat due to faulty or fraudulent documents.
In support of his claims, Narsingrao Udgirkar presented various documents, including school records showing discrepancies in caste entries, evidence that some of Kalge’s relatives were listed as Hindu Jangam, and historical records suggesting inconsistencies in the caste documentation of Kalge’s family.
However, after reviewing the evidence, the court found that the petitions lacked sufficient details.
Justice Arun R Pednekar stated,
“The material produced in the election petition, even if accepted as it is, cannot lead to the conclusion that the returned candidate does not belong to ‘Mala Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste, as the caste validity certificate is granted to him after following the due process of law by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.”
The court determined that the evidence inadequate to challenge the validity of the caste certificate and also noted that the petitioners’ reliance on incomplete documents insufficient.
The court concluded that the evidence presented by the petitioners was insufficient to dispute Shivaji Bandappa Kalge’s caste status.
The judgment stated,
“The documents produced by the petitioners, even if accepted as they are, no findings can be rendered that the returned candidate does not belong to the caste ‘Mala Jangam’ and negate the caste validity certificate granted to the returned candidate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,”
Addressing the claim of fraudulent documents, the court held that merely using terms like ‘fraudulent’ and ‘fake’ is not enough without substantive proof.
The court noted in its dismissal,
“Even an erroneous decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, granting validity to the caste certificate, cannot be challenged in an election petition,”
Advocates Jayshree Patil and Uttam Laxmanrao Telgaonkar represented the petitioner.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
