Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the report of the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) dated 27-10-2021 and seeking confirmation of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on 03-04-2012 as valid. The petitioner, G. Manjunatha, claimed to belong to the ‘Budaga Jangama’ caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in Karnataka. He contended that his forefathers and family traditionally belonged to that caste, and that school records erroneously recorded his caste as ‘Byragi’ due to illiteracy. In 2008, he first applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the Tahsildar. An appeal to the DCVC was also rejected. After gathering additional material, he made a fresh application in 2010. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to issue the certificate, and a caste certificate was issued on 26-11-2010. The petitioner alleged that the file subsequently disappeared, leading him to file yet another application in 2012. The Tahsildar conducted a spot mahazar and issued a caste certificate dated 03-04-2012 certifying him as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste. When he later sought a certified copy of the order under the Right to Information Act, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement on 14-03-2013 stating that no such certificate had been issued. This prompted the petitioner to file Writ Petition No.17122 of 2013. Meanwhile, the petitioner contested the State Legislative Assembly election from 145 Mulbagal (SC) constituency and won on the strength of that certificate. Rival candidates and a voter filed writ petitions and an election petition challenging his caste claim. The election petition was allowed on 25-04-2018, holding that the petitioner did not belong to Budaga Jangama but to Byragi (OBC). The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2018. The Supreme Court, by order dated 30-01-2020, directed the DCVC to submit a fresh report on the petitioner’s caste status. The DCVC conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 27-10-2021, concluding that the petitioner belongs to Byragi caste and not Budaga Jangama. The Supreme Court, noting the report, granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the DCVC findings before the High Court. The petitioner contended before the High Court that the DCVC ignored evidence such as the 1939 Kolar Gazetteer, which showed the presence of Budaga Jangama in Kolar District, and the deposition of witnesses in his favor. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the High Court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the report of the District Caste Verification Committee dated 27-10-2021 declaring that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste is valid and whether the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on 03-04-2012 should be confirmed.
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (12) 21
Writ Petition No. 2841 of 2023 (GM-CC)
Ashok Haranahalli, Ragupathy K., C. Jagadish, Prakash M. Patil, N.S. Sheshadri, Pramila Nesargi, Kavyashree G.S., K. Ravishankar, M.S.B. Anand
State of Karnataka and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the report of the District Caste Verification Committee and seeking confirmation of the caste certificate.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the DCVC report dated 27-10-2021 and a direction to confirm the caste certificate issued on 03-04-2012 as legal and valid.
Filing Reason
The DCVC report concluded that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste of Budaga Jangama but to the Other Backward Class of Byragi, thereby invalidating his claim to SC status.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar initially rejected the application in 2008; the DCVC rejected the appeal in 2008; a caste certificate was issued on 03-04-2012 after a fresh application and spot mahazar; the Tahsildar later issued an endorsement denying the certificate; the election petition was allowed in 2018 setting aside the election; the Supreme Court directed a fresh DCVC report in 2020; the DCVC submitted its report on 27-10-2021 against the petitioner; the Supreme Court granted liberty to challenge the report before the High Court.
Issues
Whether the report of the District Caste Verification Committee dated 27-10-2021 declaring that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste is valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of his caste certificate dated 03-04-2012 as belonging to Budaga Jangama Scheduled Caste.
Submissions/Arguments
The caste certificate was issued after a detailed enquiry pursuant to the directions of the Deputy Commissioner.
The Tahsildar's endorsement denying the issuance of the certificate led to the dispute.
Political opponents generated litigation to defeat the rights of an elected representative belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
The DCVC ignored the 1939 Kolar Gazetteer which showed the presence of Budaga Jangama caste in Kolar District.
The DCVC failed to consider evidence of witnesses who deposed before it in favor of the petitioner.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner claims to be a resident of Maraheru Kothur Village and claims to be belonging to ‘Budaga Jangama’ caste.
The DCVC conducts a detailed inquiry and passes an order holding that the petitioner does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste but belongs to Byragi caste.
The Apex Court in terms of its order dated 30-01-2020 directed the 2nd respondent to submit a report afresh with regard to the caste status of the petitioner.
Procedural History
In 2008, the petitioner applied for a caste certificate, which was rejected by the Tahsildar. The appeal to the DCVC was rejected in 2008. In 2010, he made a fresh application, and the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to issue the certificate, which was issued on 26-11-2010. After the file allegedly disappeared, he applied again in 2012, and a caste certificate dated 03-04-2012 was issued after a spot mahazar. In 2013, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement denying the existence of the certificate, leading to Writ Petition No.17122/2013. The petitioner was elected to the Legislative Assembly from Mulbagal (SC) constituency. Rival candidates filed writ petitions and an election petition. The election petition was allowed on 25-04-2018, setting aside the election. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.4533/2018). On 30-01-2020, the Supreme Court directed the DCVC to submit a fresh report. The DCVC submitted its report on 27-10-2021, concluding the petitioner belongs to Byragi caste. The Supreme Court granted liberty to challenge the report before the High Court, resulting in the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990:
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules, 1992:
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
