Plea before Bombay High Court challenges Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act amendments

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday sought the assistance of the Maharashtra Advocate General in a plea challenging the recent amendments to the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000. [Halbi Adim Jamat Mandal, Yavatmal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The case was listed before a division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas at Nagpur.

The latest amendments to the Act introduce statutory definitions for "fake" and "false" caste and validity certificates. The law now also empowers scrutiny committees to exercise suo motu review powers without any period of limitation. 

Additionally, it creates a departmental appellate authority, mandates compulsory FIR registrations and directs the immediate withdrawal of reservation benefits.

A Yavatmal-based public trust has challenged the amendment Act of July 2026 and the notification dated August 10. 

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretaries for the Law and Judiciary, Tribal Development, Social Justice, and OBC Welfare Departments are the respondents in the case.

The petition argues that by arbitrarily clubbing ‘fake’ and ‘false’ certificates, genuine claimants, who fail to discharge the burden of proof , would be treated at par with the individuals involved in fraud.

“The object sought to be achieved by amendment is not only to discourage or to prevent or frustrate an attempt to genuinely initiate a process to acquire a validity certificate, but poses a threat to initiate the process and thereby makes the said Act a dead letter. It is indirectly aimed at finishing or bringing to an end the claims for reservations,” the petition states. 

It also contends that the suo motu powers of reviewing and canceling validity certificates are unbridled and opposed to public policy. 

Further, the petition challenges the provision of designating executive revenue officers as appellate authorities. This may create structural bias as the officers lacked judicial training, the plea argues.

“The remedy is reduced to an appeal from Caesar to Caesar, which is destructive of the rule of law and of the principles of natural justice,” it adds.

Advocate Ashwin Deshpande appeared for the Trust.

Additional Government Pleader Piyush Pendke appeared for the State.