Calcutta High Court | PIL Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Fraudulent Grant of SC/ST Certificates Over Last 15 Years Dismissed | Statutory Remedy Under 1994 Act and 1995 Rules to Be Pursued
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court at Calcutta, Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De, dismissed a public interest litigation seeking cancellation of caste certificates and a central investigation into their alleged fraudulent issuance. The Court held that the petitioners had a statutory remedy under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, and the related Rules of 1995. The Bench stated that as the petitioners had already approached the statutory authority, there was no ground for the High Court to entertain the matter under its writ jurisdiction. The Court directed that the competent statutory authority, already seized of the complaints, would continue to examine the issue in accordance with law.
The petition was brought as a public interest litigation with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to cancel or set aside Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes certificates granted to certain private respondents. The petitioners also sought a direction for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent body into the issuance of caste certificates allegedly obtained by fraudulent means over the past fifteen years.
Counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the issuance of caste certificates had been made, and that upon such complaints, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer had initiated proceedings. It was submitted that the authority in question could be directed to conclude those proceedings. The maintainability of the public interest litigation was argued on the ground that it involved questions of public law and public interest. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Supreme Court, including Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Cooperative Credit Society Limited (2008) 12 SCC 541, Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465, Institute of Law, Chandigarh v. Neeraj Sharma (2015) 1 SCC 720, and Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale (2012) 2 SCC 425. It was submitted that locus standi rules in public interest litigations must not be rigidly construed and that even individuals acting in good faith could approach the Court to prevent public wrongs.
The petitioners also referred to the Supreme Court order in The State of West Bengal v. Dipak Mishra (SLP (Crl) Nos. 2669-2670/2021, order dated 26 March 2021), to contend that a petition could not be dismissed merely because the petitioner belonged to a political party.
On behalf of the State, senior counsel pointed to provisions of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. Section 8A(1) of the Act provides for the constitution of a State Scrutiny Committee for verification of social status. Section 9(1) provides that if a certificate is found to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression, the issuing authority may cancel, impound, or revoke it. Reference was made to Rule 3 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995, which prescribes the procedure for such cancellation or revocation. It was submitted that the petitioners therefore had a statutory remedy, which they had already invoked. Senior counsel for the State added that he had no objection if the petitioners pursued their applications before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and that such authority should be permitted to decide the matter.
The State further relied on judgments such as Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590, Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614, and Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 5 SCC 530. These decisions were cited to caution against misuse of public interest litigation and to argue that where statutory mechanisms exist, recourse should not be had directly to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Private respondents contended that the petition was politically motivated and that petitioner no.1, an association following the teachings of a religious guru, did not represent the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities. It was argued that the association had no locus to raise grievances concerning those communities, and that certain petitioners were political leaders, thus questioning the bona fides of the litigation.
The Court recorded that it heard the parties at length and considered the record before it.
The Bench noted that the petitioners had relied on decisions that broadened the scope of locus standi in public interest litigations. The Court observed: “A careful reading of both the judgments show that in these cases, the question whether a PIL should still be entertained when a statutory mechanism for cancellation/revocation of caste certificate is in place and petitioners have already availed the same was not the issue or subject matter of consideration.”
The Court further observed that as the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, and the Rules of 1995 provided a mechanism to revoke caste certificates obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, and since the petitioners had already approached the Sub-Divisional Officer for revocation, the reliance placed on those precedents could not assist the petitioners.
Addressing the reliance on the Supreme Court order in The State of West Bengal v. Dipak Mishra, the Court observed: “There is no cavil of doubt that if PIL raises a public cause and is otherwise maintainable, it cannot be thrown to winds merely because petitioner has any political affiliation. We find no difficulty in accepting the said proposition and therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of private respondents that PIL is not maintainable because some of the petitioners have political links/affiliation.”
At the same time, the Court recorded the principles in Supreme Court precedents cited by the State, noting: “The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If PIL is permitted to be misused, the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated.” It further observed: “When their interest can be protected and the controversy of dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be sent to said forum rather entertaining the PIL.”
Quoting the Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal v. Dipak Mishra, the Court observed: “Though PIL is not to be entertained in service matters, that does not stand in the way of the officials from examining the question in the right perspective. In the present case admittedly the officials have initiated action.”
The Court also quoted from the judgment in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti: “In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petitioner filed as public interest litigation.”
The Court noted that none of the authorities relied upon by the petitioners directly addressed the situation where a statutory mechanism for challenging caste certificates was in place and was already being pursued. The Court observed: “In view of these direct judgments, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot improve his case.”
The Bench recorded that it is settled law that precedent is what has been actually decided, and that a different factual background may change the precedential value of a judgment. It noted that the judgments in Neetu and Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti directly concerned the availability of statutory mechanisms to deal with grievances similar to those raised in the present case. The Court thus stated it was inclined to follow the ratio decidendi of those judgments.
Summarising the position, the Court observed: “The petitioners not only have the statutory remedy under the SC/ST Act and Rules, they have admittedly availed it and their complains are pending consideration before the authority (Sub-Divisional Officer).”
The Division Bench held that the public interest litigation was not maintainable. It stated: “Thus, in tune with the judgment of Supreme Court in Neetu (supra) and Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti (supra), we are constrained to hold that this PIL is not maintainable. Petitioners’ interest can be protected and controversy can be adjudicated in a mechanism created under the statute.” The Court accordingly did not entertain the public interest litigation.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its dismissal of the PIL would not prevent the competent officials from continuing their inquiry. It stated: “However, this order will not stand in the way of officials from examining the question in the right perspective and take a decision on validity of caste certificates in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty, Advocate; Mr. N.C. Dey, Advocate; Mr. Arijit Bera, Advocate; Ms. Saika Amrin, Advocate; Ms. Zeba Rashid, Advocate; Mr. Maheswar Malo Das, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Soumya Majumder, Senior Advocate; Ms. Afreen Begum, Advocate; Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Advocate; Mr. Shamit Sanyal, Advocate; Ms. Priyakshi Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Advocate; Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arka K. Nag, Advocate; Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Advocate
Case Title: The All India Matua Mahasangha & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: CHC-AS:1702-DB
Case Number: WPA(P) 170 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De
