In a significant ruling on the boundaries of election disputes, the Allahabad High Court has held that an Election Tribunal does not possess the jurisdiction to scrutinize or invalidate a caste certificate issued by a competent authority. Dismissing an election petition that sought to set aside the election of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) on the grounds of an allegedly fraudulent caste certificate, Justice Neeraj Tiwari clarified that such challenges fall exclusively within the domain of dedicated statutory scrutiny committees constituted by the state government.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections for the 335 Ram Kola Assembly Constituency, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. Following the Election Commission of India’s notification on February 4, 2022, both the petitioner, Radha Charan, and the respondent, Vinay Prakash Gond, filed their nomination papers.
Charan contended that Gond belonged to a Backward Class (specifically the ‘Kahar’ caste) but had fraudulently obtained an SC Certificate dated August 30, 2012, to contest from the reserved constituency. Charan lodged a complaint with the Returning Officer on February 14, 2022, seeking the cancellation of Gond’s nomination. However, the Returning Officer rejected the complaint, the election proceeded, and Gond was subsequently declared the elected candidate.
Charan then approached the High Court with an election petition to set aside Gond’s election. It was undisputed that Gond’s SC Certificate was already under challenge before a District Level Committee constituted by the State Government, and no final decision had been reached by the committee. Gond, in his defense, maintained that he belonged to the ‘Gond’ caste, which is recognized as an SC under the relevant government orders, and that his certificate had previously been found genuine upon scrutiny.
Framing of the Jurisdiction Issue
Although an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the petition was dismissed on July 29, 2024, the High Court subsequently framed formal issues on September 18, 2024. In light of the undisputed fact that Gond’s SC Certificate had never been cancelled by the District Level Committee or any authorized body, both parties agreed on April 27, 2026, to have the court first decide the pivotal jurisdictional issue:
“Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare that the caste certificate forged or not.”
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Ram Kumar Gautam, argued that under Section 36(2)(a) read with Sections 100(1)(a), 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(2)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Election Tribunal possesses the authority to examine the genuineness of any document submitted with nomination papers, including caste certificates. The petitioner relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Ramlal Kol vs. Moti Kashyap @ Motilal and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Anandra Vithoba Adsul vs. State of Maharashtra.
Conversely, Sri P.K. Kashyap, representing Gond, submitted that the State Government has established a structured hierarchy consisting of District, Divisional, and State Level Committees to verify and scrutinize caste certificates. He argued that the Election Tribunal has no authority to perform this role. The respondent cited several precedents, including the landmark Supreme Court decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner and the subsequent ruling in Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles vs. State of Maharashtra, which overruled the Anandra Vithoba Adsul judgment.
Court’s Analysis
Upon hearing both sides, the High Court analyzed the legal framework governing caste certificate verification. The court observed that the petitioner’s reliance on Ramlal Kol was inapplicable because there was no dispute that Gond’s certificate was issued by a competent authority, meaning there was no occasion for the Returning Officer to question its issuance unless it was formally annulled.
The court extensively referenced the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil, which mandated that State Governments constitute specific committees to scrutinize caste certificates, making their decisions final and subject only to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court highlighted that this principle applies to election matters as well, as established in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P., where it was affirmed that the adjudication of a candidate’s caste status must reside solely with the Scrutiny Committee.
Furthermore, the court drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision in A. Raja vs. D. Kumar (2025 INSC 62 G), which unequivocally settled the limits of an Election Petition. The court quoted the Supreme Court’s critical observation:
“A duly issued Caste/Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition.”
The High Court also noted that the Supreme Court in Navneet Kaur had cautioned against courts undertaking a “roving inquiry” into matters that fall within the exclusive, fact-finding domain of the Scrutiny Committee. The Supreme Court in that case observed:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that High Court inadvertently undertook an erroneous exercise of appreciating evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Artice 226 of Constitution of India and swayed itself into a roving inquiry which was not expected as per settled legal position.”
The Court’s Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the validity of a caste certificate issued by a competent authority can neither be challenged nor scrutinized by an Election Tribunal within an election petition. In Uttar Pradesh, the authority to validate or invalidate such certificates rests solely with the District, Regional, and State Level Committees.
Finding that the election petition lacked merit, the court dismissed the petition. No order as to costs was made.
Before parting with the judgment, the court formally recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by Ms. Moksha Pandey and Ms. Pratiksha Tiwari, Research Associates, in researching the legal issues and assisting in the preparation of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Radha Charan Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case No.: Election Petition No. 6 of 2022
Bench: Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Date: July 6, 2026
