REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  10465           OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34229 of 2010

Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors                       .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The principal question which arose for consideration in  

this appeal is whether “Namdeo Shimpi” caste is a sub-caste  

within the meaning of Entry 153 (Shimpi) in the Government  

Notification  notifying  list  of  Other  Backward  Classes  (OBC)  

relating  to  the  State  of  Maharashtra,  even though it  is  not  

specifically mentioned as such?  

1

3) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order  

dated 21.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Bombay  in  Writ  Petition  No.  5772  of  2009  whereby  the  

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition  

filed by the appellant herein.    

4) Brief Facts:

(a) On 18.01.1997, the Additional District Deputy Collector,  

Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai issued a Caste Certificate  

to the appellant herein certifying that she belongs to Hindu  

Shimpi Caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class  

(Sr. No. 153) under Government Resolution No. CBC 1467/M  

dated 13.10.1967, Education and Social Welfare Department  

and as amended from time to time.    In the year 2007, the  

appellant herein along with Mrs Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf-  

Respondent  No.  6  contested  the  elections  of  Municipal  

Corporation of Greater Mumbai from Ward No. 62 reserved for  

women candidate belonging to the other backward classes and  

the appellant won the election.  As per the policy of the State  

Election  Commission,  the  Caste  Certificate  of  the  appellant  

2

herein was sent to the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the  

caste claimed and issue of validity certificate.

(b)  After  the  elections,  Respondent  No.  6  forwarded  a  

complaint  to  the  Caste  Scrutiny  Committee  (in  short  ‘the  

Committee’) alleging that the appellant’s claim of belonging to  

caste “Hindu Shimpi” was not proper.  The appellant herein  

also submitted the documents in support of  her claim.  By  

order dated 20.04.2007, the Committee certified that the Caste  

Certificate issued to the appellant was valid and accepted that  

she belongs to ‘Shimpi’ of Other Backward Class (OBC).   

(c) Challenging the said order, Respondent No. 6 filed Writ  

Petition No. 5112 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay.  

By order dated 15.09.2008, the High Court set aside the order  

dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Committee and remanded the  

matter  back to it  for  de novo consideration and decision in  

accordance  with  law.   By  order  dated  19.06.2009,  the  

Committee  declared  the  claim  of  the  appellant  herein  as  

invalid and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to her.

(d) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2009, the appellant  

herein filed Writ  Petition No.  5772 of  2009 before  the  High  

3

Court of  Bombay.  By order dated 21.10.2010, the Division  

Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.  

(e) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein has  

preferred this appeal by way of special  leave petition before  

this Court.

5) Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for  

the appellant and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for  

respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. S. Sukumaran, learned counsel  

for  respondent  No.5  and  Mr.  A.V.  Sawant,  learned  senior  

counsel for the contesting respondent No.6.

6) Mr.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  by  

drawing  our  attention  to  the  Government  Resolution  dated  

03.06.1996  issued  by  Social  Welfare,  Cultural  Affairs  and  

Sports  Department,  Government  of  Maharashtra,  submitted  

that in view of illustration given in Clause 25, the Committee  

and the High Court ought to have accepted the claim of the  

appellant and declared that she belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’,  

which is one of the castes included in Other Backward Classes  

(OBCs).   In  the  above-mentioned  Government  Resolution,  

4

Clauses 25 and 31 have been pressed into service.  They are  

as follows:  

“Clause 25

If in the list of O.B.C.’s if there is a clear reference of the  main  caste,  the  competent  authorities  should  issue  caste  certificate to the sub-caste or the similar caste of the main  caste i.e., in the list of list of O.B.Cs’ caste Kunbi is included.  If in the documents of any person the word used are Tillori  Kunbi or Khaire Kunbi then since the caste Kunbi is in the  list of the O.B.C’s and since the said caste is a main caste,  such person be granted certificate of the caste Kunbi.  If only  the  word/names  Tillori,  Khaire  are  mentioned,  the  caste  certificate cannot be issued to such person as on the bases  of  the  name  Tillori,  Khaie  the  main  caste  does  not  get  clarified.

Clause 31

In the list of O.B.C’s, eligible for the benefits in the state of  Maharashtra, main castes are included and the sub-castes  of such caste are also held eligible for issuance of the caste  certificate.  Persons belonging to such sub-castes be issued  caste certificate in the name of the main caste.”

It is not in dispute that the reference mentioned in Clause 25,  

namely, caste ‘Kunbi’ is only an illustration.  It is, no doubt,  

true that in terms of Clause 31 in the list of OBCs eligible for  

the benefits in the State of Maharashtra, if  main castes are  

included,  in  that  event,  the  sub-castes  are  also  eligible  for  

issuance  of  the  caste  certificate.   According  to  the  learned  

senior counsel for the appellant, based on Clause 31, persons  

belonging to such sub-castes can be issued caste certificate in  

5

the name of  the main caste.   Per contra,  Mr.  A.V.  Sawant,  

learned  senior  counsel  for  the  contesting  respondent  No.6  

submitted that first of all, the reference made by the appellant  

is not a full extract and admittedly it is only a portion thereof  

and  in  the  absence  of  full  details  about  the  Government  

Resolution, it is not safe to rely upon and, more particularly,  

in the light of Constitutional judgments of this Court clarifying  

the position regarding issuance of caste certificate.   

7) On  a  complaint  being  made  by  Respondent  No.  6,  

regarding the validity of the caste certificate produced by the  

appellant,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  Regional  Caste  

Certificate Verification Committee (RCCVC).  The Verification  

Committee, consisting of the President, Member and Research  

Officer, on receipt of the complaint issued notice to both the  

parties,  afforded  opportunity  to  them  and  after  relying  on  

various  materials  including  the  Government  Notifications,  

Regulations  etc.,  by  order  dated  19.06.2009,  declared  the  

claim  of  the  appellant  invalid  and  cancelled  the  Caste  

Certificate issued by the Additional District Deputy Collector,  

Mumbai Suburban District dated 18.01.1997.   

6

8) The  said  order  of  the  Verification  Committee  was  

challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court and by  

order  dated  21.10.2010,  it  concluded  that  the  appellant  

belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ caste which does not fall under  

Entry  153  of  the  relevant  Government  Resolution  dated  

01.03.2006 issued by the Government of Maharashtra.  It is  

relevant  to  point  out  that  though some other  sub-castes of  

caste ‘Shimpi’  in (OBC) have been mentioned in Entry 153,  

admittedly, ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ has not been included under the  

original caste ‘Shimpi’.  The relevant protion of the Entry 153  

is as under:  

________________________________________________________________________ S.No. Original caste and Serial no. Synonym caste/sub-caste

In the category of Other and Serial Number of its  Backward Class original caste included  

afresh

6. Shimpi     --- 153 Jain Shimpi, Shravak Shimpi, Shetaval, Shetawal, Saitaval,  Saitawal --- 153

In  view  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  reference  to  ‘Namdeo  

Shimpi’ in Entry 153, the appellant who belongs to the same  

caste  cannot  claim the  benefit  meant  for  ‘Other  Back-ward  

Classes’ of ‘Shimpi’ caste.  

7

9) The  issue  relating  to  caste  certificate,  scrutiny  by  the  

Committee, inclusion or deletion etc. have been considered by  

the  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  State  of  

Maharashtra vs.  Milind  and  Others,  (2001)  1  SCC  4.  

Relying upon two earlier Constitution Bench decisions in (i) B.  

Basavalingappa vs. D. Munichinappa, AIR 1965 SC 1269 =  

(1965) 1 SCR 316 and (ii) Bhaiya Lal vs. Harikishan Singh,  

AIR  1965  SC  1557  =  (1965)  2  SCR  877,  the  Constitution  

Bench  in  Milind’s  case  (supra) has  clearly  held  that  an  

enquiry  as to whether  any other  caste  or  sub-caste  can be  

included  in the  caste  or  tribe  specifically  mentioned  in  the  

Presidential Order was wholly impermissible.   

10) The factual position in the  Milind’s case (supra) is as  

follows:-

The  respondent,  on  the  basis  of  the  School  Leaving  

Certificate and other records of himself and his close relative  

obtained  a  caste  certificate  from  the  Executive  Magistrate,  

Nagpur  on  20.08.1981  as  belonging  to  “Halba”,  Scheduled  

Tribe.  On the basis of that certificate, he was selected in the  

Government Medical College for MBBS degree course for the  

8

year 1985-86 in the reserved category meant for  Scheduled  

Tribes.  The certificate was sent for verification to the Scrutiny  

Committee constituted under the Directorate of Social Welfare.  

After  necessary  inquiry,  the  Scrutiny  Committee  recorded a  

finding  to  the  contrary  and  rejected  the  certificate.   The  

Appellate  Authority,  after  detailed  examination  of  evidence  

dismissed  the  respondent’s  appeal  and  held  that  the  

respondent  belonged  to  “Koshti”  caste  and  not  to  

“Halba/Halbi”,  Scheduled  Tribe.   However,  the  High  Court  

allowed  the  respondent’s  writ  petition  and  quashed  the  

impugned orders  inter alia holding that it was permissible to  

inquire  whether  any  subdivision  of  a  tribe  was  a  part  and  

parcel of the tribe mentioned therein and that “Halba-Koshti”  

was a subdivision of main tribe “Halba/Halbi” as per Entry 19  

in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (for short  

“Scheduled Tribes Order”) applicable to Maharashtra.  Before  

the  Constitution  Bench,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant-State of Maharashtra contended that:

9

(a) it  was  not  permissible  to  hold  an  inquiry  whether  a  

particular group was a part of the Scheduled Tribe as specified  

in the Scheduled Tribes Order;

(b) the decision in Bhaiya Ram Munda vs. Anirudh Patar  

&  Ors. (1970)  2  SCC  825,  did  not  lay  down  the  correct  

principle of law as to the scope of inquiry and the power to  

amend  the  Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  Order;  [this  

contention involved the specific question as to whether “Halba-

Koshti” caste was a sub-tribe within the meaning of Entry 19  

(Halba/Halbi)  of  the  Scheduled Tribes Order  relating  to  the  

State of Maharashtra, even though not specifically mentioned  

as such].  

(c) the  High  Court  misinterpreted  the  report  of  the  Joint  

Committee of Parliament placed before it when representations  

for inclusion of “Halba-Koshti” in the Scheduled Tribes Order  

were rejected;

(d) the High Court also committed an error in invoking and  

applying  the  principle  of  stare  decisis to  the  facts  of  the  

present case;

10

(e) & (f) the High Court erred in setting aside the orders of the  

Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority which were  

made  on  proper  and  full  consideration  of  evidence  and  

authorities;

(g) the  High  Court  gave  undue  importance  to  the  

resolutions/circulars issued by the State Government which  

were contrary to law;

(h) the High Court erred in treating the issue involved in the  

present case to have been closed in Abhay caste.     

On the other hand learned senior counsel for the respondent  

contended that  the  old  records  relating  to  the  period when  

there was no controversy,  clearly supported the case of  the  

respondent and the School  Leaving Certificate issued to the  

respondent was valid.  He also submitted that it was open to  

show that a particular caste was part of the Scheduled Tribes  

coming  within  the  meaning  and  scope  of  tribal  community  

even though it was not described as such in the Presidential  

Order.   

11) Allowing  the  appeal  but  moulding  the  relief,  the  

Constitution Bench held thus:

11

“11. By virtue of powers vested under Articles 341 and 342  of the Constitution of India, the President is empowered to  issue  public  notification  for  the  first  time  specifying  the  castes,  races or  tribes or  part  of  or  groups within castes,  races,  or  tribes  which  shall,  for  the  purposes  of  the  Constitution  be  deemed  to  be  Scheduled  Castes  or  Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory, as  the case may be. The language and terms of Articles 341 and  342  are  identical.  What  is  said  in  relation  to  Article  341  mutatis mutandis applies to Article 342. The laudable object  of the said articles is to provide additional protection to the  members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  having regard to social and educational backwardness from  which they have been suffering since a considerable length  of  time.  The  words  “castes”  or  “tribes”  in  the  expression  “Scheduled Castes” and “Scheduled Tribes” are not used in  the ordinary sense of the terms but are used in the sense of  the definitions contained in Articles 366(24) and 366(25). In  this  view,  a  caste  is  a  Scheduled  Caste  or  a  tribe  is  a  Scheduled Tribe only if they are included in the President's  Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 for the purpose of  the Constitution. Exercising the powers vested in him, the  President  has  issued  the  Constitution  (Scheduled  Castes)  Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,  1950. Subsequently, some orders were issued under the said  articles in relation to Union Territories and other States and  there have been certain amendments in relation to Orders  issued, by amendment Acts passed by Parliament.

15.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  States  have  no  power  to  amend  Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power or the  Government  of  the  day  in  a  State  is  relieved  from  the  pressure or burden of tinkering with the Presidential Orders  either to gain popularity or secure votes. Number of persons  in  order  to  gain  advantage  in  securing  admissions  in  educational  institutions and employment  in  State  services  have been claiming as belonging to either Scheduled Castes  or  Scheduled Tribes  depriving genuine and needy persons  belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes covered  by  the  Presidential  Orders,  defeating  and frustrating  to  a  large extent the very object of protective discrimination given  to  such  people  based  on  their  educational  and  social  

12

backwardness.  Courts  cannot  and  should  not  expand  jurisdiction  to  deal  with  the  question  as  to  whether  a  particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe or sub- tribe is included in any one of the entries mentioned in the  Presidential  Orders  issued  under  Articles  341  and  342  particularly so when in clause (2)  of  the said article,  it  is  expressly stated that the said Orders cannot be amended or  varied  except  by  law  made  by  Parliament.  The  power  to  include  or  exclude,  amend  or  alter  Presidential  Order  is  expressly  and  exclusively  conferred  on  and  vested  with  Parliament and that too by making a law in that regard. The  President had the benefit of consulting the States through  Governors of States which had the means and machinery to  find out and recommend as to whether a particular caste or  tribe was to be included in the Presidential Order. If the said  Orders are to be amended, it is Parliament that is in a better  position to know having the means and machinery unlike  courts as to why a particular caste or tribe is to be included  or excluded by law to be made by Parliament. Allowing the  State  Governments  or  courts  or  other  authorities  or  Tribunals to hold inquiry as to whether a particular caste or  tribe should be considered as one included in the schedule  of  the  Presidential  Order,  when  it  is  not  so  specifically  included, may lead to problems. In order to gain advantage  of  reservations  for  the  purpose  of  Article  15(4)  or  16(4)  several  persons  have  been coming  forward claiming  to  be  covered by Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and  342.  This  apart,  when  no  other  authority  other  than  Parliament, that too by law alone can amend the Presidential  Orders, neither the State Governments nor the courts nor  Tribunals nor any authority can assume jurisdiction to hold  inquiry and take evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or  part  of  or  a  group within  a  caste  or  tribe  is  included  in  Presidential Orders in one entry or the other although they  are not expressly and specifically included. A court cannot  alter or amend the said Presidential Orders for the very good  reason that it  has no power to do so within the meaning,  content and scope of Articles 341 and 342. It is not possible  to hold that either any inquiry is permissible or any evidence  can be let in, in relation to a particular caste or tribe to say  whether it is included within Presidential Orders when it is  not so expressly included.

13

36. Finally, the Constitution Bench has concluded that:

1. It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any  evidence  to  decide  or  declare  that  any  tribe  or  tribal  community  or  part  of  or  group within  any  tribe  or  tribal  community is included in the general name even though it is  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the  entry  concerned  in  the  Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not  even permissible  to  say that  a tribe,  sub-tribe,  part  of  or  group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the  one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not  so specifically mentioned in it.

3.  A  notification  issued  under  clause  (1)  of  Article  342,  specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to  be made by Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal  community  or  part  of  or  group  within  any  tribe  can  be  included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued  under clause (1) of Article 342 only by Parliament by law and  by no other authority.

4. It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals  or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of  Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under  clause (1) of Article 342.

5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiya  Ram Munda v.  Anirudh Patar and  Dina v.  Narain Singh did  not lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry was  permissible  and  the  evidence  was  admissible  within  the  limitations  indicated  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  an  entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated  in Position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no  evidence can be let in, in the matter.”

12) In  Kumari  Madhuri  Patil  & Another vs.  Additional  

Commissioner,  Tribal  Development  & Ors. (1994)  6  SCC  

241, this Court has given elaborate directions for deciding the  

14

claim  of  persons  who  belong  to  the  Scheduled  Castes,  

Scheduled  Tribes  or  Other  Backward  Classes.   These  

directions have been reiterated in a recent decision by a larger  

Bench of three Judges of this Court in Dayaram vs.  Sudhir  

Batham & Ors. 2011 (11) Scale 448.  

13) Mr.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel,  by  relying  on  the  

position  prevailing  in  the  State  of  Karnataka,  namely,  that  

caste ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ has been included in OBC submitted  

that  the  same  analogy  may  be  applied  to  the  State  of  

Maharashtra.  We have already noted the elaborate discussion  

and  the  ultimate  order  of  the  Committee  as  well  as  the  

Division Bench of the High Court.  We are satisfied that before  

arriving at such conclusion they considered the entire material  

on record including the distinction between the list of OBCs in  

the State of Karnataka as against the list of OBCs in State of  

Maharashtra and recorded a finding that the appellant who  

belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ caste does not belong to OBC of  

‘Shimpi’ caste in Maharashtra.  In view of the same, we reject  

the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant.  

15

14) Ms.  Asha Gopalan Nair,  learned counsel  appearing  for  

the State took us through various averments in the counter  

affidavit  filed  by  the  State  of  Maharashta.   The  counter  

affidavit  filed  by  the  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  

Maharashtra  in  this  Court  shows  that  pursuant  to  the  

recommendations made by the Maharashtra State Backward  

Class  Commission,  the  list  of  castes  falling  under  OBC  

‘Shimpi’ has been amended from time to time.  However, even  

the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2006 does not include  

‘Namdeo Shimpi’ under the heading ‘Shimpi’ as OBC.  

15) It  is brought to our notice  that  the Maharashtra State  

Backward Class Commission has been constituted in terms of  

the judgment of this Court in  Indra Sawhney vs.  Union of  

India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 212, which is headed by a retired  

Judge of the Bombay High Court and assisted by experts in  

the field.  Further, the said Commission undertakes extensive  

studies  and  make  recommendations  from  time  to  time  or  

suggest additions and alterations in the list of OBCs and it is  

after such elaborate exercise the final list has emerged as per  

the  Government  Resolution  dated  01.03.2006.   The  details  

16

furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary to the  

Government  of  Maharashtra  show  that  the  above  referred  

Government Resolution is being updated from 1961 on several  

occasions.  We have already explained that the extract of the  

Government  Resolution  dated  03.06.1996  relied  on  by  Mr.  

Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  dealing  with  

caste  ‘Kunbi’  (OBC),  has  no  relevance  to  the  facts  of  the  

present case.  We are also satisfied that the said Committee  

has considered the distinction between the list of OBCs in the  

State of Karnataka and in State of Maharashtra and has taken  

note of the fact that though the Karnataka State has thought  

it fit to include ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ under the category of ‘Shimpi’  

(OBC), the Government of Maharashtra has not done so.  This  

has also been rightly highlighted in the impugned order by the  

Division Bench of the High Court.

16) When it is not so expressly or specifically included in the  

Government Resolution/order along with the main caste,  in  

such case, even if it is synonymous to the one mentioned in  

the  order,  it  is  not  permissible  to  avail  such  benefit  of  

reservation.  It is well known that a caste may fall under the  

17

category of OBCs in one State, but the said caste may not be  

classified as OBC in other State.  At any rate, we are of the  

view  that  no  specific  evidence  was  led  by  the  appellant  to  

discharge the burden of proof on her under Section 8 of the  

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,  2001.  

Inasmuch as the burden of proof under Section 8 of the said  

Act being on the person who claims to belong to that caste,  

tribe,  or  class,  in  view  of  the  factual  conclusion  by  the  

Committee  based  on  relevant  acceptable  material  and  the  

decision of the Division Bench, we are unable to accept the  

claim of the appellant.  On the other hand, we are satisfied  

that the Committee and the Division Bench of the High Court  

have considered the entire material in the light of the decisions  

of this Court and came to a finding of fact that the appellant  

does  not  belong  to  caste  ‘Shimpi’  (OBC)  and  belongs  to  

‘Namdeo  Shimpi’  caste  which  is  not  OBC  in  the  State  of  

Maharashtra.  

18

17) Under  these  circumstances,  we  do  not  find  any  valid  

ground for interference with the impugned order of the High  

Court.   Consequently,  the  appeal  fails  and  the  same  is  

dismissed with no order as to costs.   

...……………. …………………………J.  

         (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.    (J. CHELAMESWAR)  

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 05, 2011.              

19