All appointments and admissions secured through fake certificates are void, court rules..Coming down heavily on those who game the system by obtaining false SC/ST/OBC certificates, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that all cases of public employment or admission in public colleges obtained by such dishonest means would stand invalidated..The appointees or students would not receive any benefits and would not qualify for obtaining judicial leniency, the Court has ruled..Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud held that those obtaining spurious certificates to stake their claim to backwardness and reservation commit an “egregious fraud” on the Constitution, laws, and state policy..The Court was hearing a batch of appeals by the Food Corporation of India and other government organisations against high court judgments allowing employees to continue in service and enjoy post-retirement benefits. The appeals also related to judgments allowing students to continue studying in government colleges even if their Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or other reserved categories certificates were found to be false after verification by a Scrutiny Committee..The Court held that a median has to be attained between compassion and letter of the law while deciding upon various equities which have crystallised because the employment has been continuing for years, or the academic course has already been going on for some years..In order to see whether such equities are sustainable in law, judicial discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution (the power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice) must be exercised in consonance with the intent of the legislature..Referring to the apex court’s decision in Anurag Kumar Singh v State of Uttarakhand (2016), Justice Chandrachud held,.“…the power under Article 142 is one which is wielded with circumspection and not in a manner which would defeat the statutory intent, purpose or language.”.Stating that a piecemeal assessment of human consequences flowing out of the invalidation of employment or admissions in individual cases has resulted in a conflicting approach, he stressed upon judicial parameters to be established so as to prevent the usurpation of constitutional benefits. Else, the Court held,.“It would leave open a path of incentives for claims based on fraud to survive legal gambits and the creativity of the disingenuous”..Cancellation of Certificates and its Consequences.The Court was interpreting various provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificates Act, 2001..This law was brought about as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development on September 2, 1994. This decision called for the institution of a procedure of verifying various certificates to avail of affirmative action programmes..Section 7 of the Act deals with cancellation and confiscation of certificates which are found to be false after scrutiny, while Sections 10 and 11 deal with withdrawal of benefits and institution of criminal proceedings, respectively..In State of Maharashtra v Milind (2001), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 38 of its judgement, held that condonation ought to be granted to those who are in service and whose certificates, even if found to be false, were issued prior to 2001. At the same time, the bench also cautioned against allowing claims to be usurped by the undeserving..Clarifying the issue, Justice Chandrachud held that the holding in paragraph 38 of Milind was given under the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, and could not be regarded as a binding mandate..Instead, he went by the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench ruling in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v State of Kerala (2004) in which the court declined to condone an illegal appointment on the ground merely that the petitioner had spent 27 years in service..The Court held that all appointments based on false certificates were to be regarded as null from the very beginning, and no benefits would accrue from such appointment or employment..Ruling out the role of “dishonest intent” in obtaining caste certificates, the Court held that requiring the mandatory requirement of dishonest intent would be contrary to the legislative intent. Once a certificate was proved to be false, the use of mendacity stood established..The Issue of Retrospectivity.The Respondents had contended that if appointments were made before 2001, that is, before the Maharashtra law came into force, they ought to be protected. Declining this submission, Justice Chandrachud referred to the wording of Sections 7 and 10, which said “before or after commencement of this Act”, and held that there would be no protection of employment or benefits flowing thereof. Only criminal proceedings, governed by Section 11, would operate prospectively, he held..No Leeway to False Admissions.Merely because the government had invested scarce economic and other resources in educating those who secured admissions on the basis of false certificates, it would not be a ground to not render the admissions invalid and non est, the court ruled..“Societal good lies in ensuring probity”, Justice Chandrachud wrote. He also held,.“the court, as a vital institution of democratic governance, must be firm in sending out a principled message that there is no incentive other than for behaviour compliant with rules and deviance will meet severe reprimands of the law.”.Read Judgment:
All appointments and admissions secured through fake certificates are void, court rules..Coming down heavily on those who game the system by obtaining false SC/ST/OBC certificates, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that all cases of public employment or admission in public colleges obtained by such dishonest means would stand invalidated..The appointees or students would not receive any benefits and would not qualify for obtaining judicial leniency, the Court has ruled..Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud held that those obtaining spurious certificates to stake their claim to backwardness and reservation commit an “egregious fraud” on the Constitution, laws, and state policy..The Court was hearing a batch of appeals by the Food Corporation of India and other government organisations against high court judgments allowing employees to continue in service and enjoy post-retirement benefits. The appeals also related to judgments allowing students to continue studying in government colleges even if their Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or other reserved categories certificates were found to be false after verification by a Scrutiny Committee..The Court held that a median has to be attained between compassion and letter of the law while deciding upon various equities which have crystallised because the employment has been continuing for years, or the academic course has already been going on for some years..In order to see whether such equities are sustainable in law, judicial discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution (the power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice) must be exercised in consonance with the intent of the legislature..Referring to the apex court’s decision in Anurag Kumar Singh v State of Uttarakhand (2016), Justice Chandrachud held,.“…the power under Article 142 is one which is wielded with circumspection and not in a manner which would defeat the statutory intent, purpose or language.”.Stating that a piecemeal assessment of human consequences flowing out of the invalidation of employment or admissions in individual cases has resulted in a conflicting approach, he stressed upon judicial parameters to be established so as to prevent the usurpation of constitutional benefits. Else, the Court held,.“It would leave open a path of incentives for claims based on fraud to survive legal gambits and the creativity of the disingenuous”..Cancellation of Certificates and its Consequences.The Court was interpreting various provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificates Act, 2001..This law was brought about as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development on September 2, 1994. This decision called for the institution of a procedure of verifying various certificates to avail of affirmative action programmes..Section 7 of the Act deals with cancellation and confiscation of certificates which are found to be false after scrutiny, while Sections 10 and 11 deal with withdrawal of benefits and institution of criminal proceedings, respectively..In State of Maharashtra v Milind (2001), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 38 of its judgement, held that condonation ought to be granted to those who are in service and whose certificates, even if found to be false, were issued prior to 2001. At the same time, the bench also cautioned against allowing claims to be usurped by the undeserving..Clarifying the issue, Justice Chandrachud held that the holding in paragraph 38 of Milind was given under the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, and could not be regarded as a binding mandate..Instead, he went by the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench ruling in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v State of Kerala (2004) in which the court declined to condone an illegal appointment on the ground merely that the petitioner had spent 27 years in service..The Court held that all appointments based on false certificates were to be regarded as null from the very beginning, and no benefits would accrue from such appointment or employment..Ruling out the role of “dishonest intent” in obtaining caste certificates, the Court held that requiring the mandatory requirement of dishonest intent would be contrary to the legislative intent. Once a certificate was proved to be false, the use of mendacity stood established..The Issue of Retrospectivity.The Respondents had contended that if appointments were made before 2001, that is, before the Maharashtra law came into force, they ought to be protected. Declining this submission, Justice Chandrachud referred to the wording of Sections 7 and 10, which said “before or after commencement of this Act”, and held that there would be no protection of employment or benefits flowing thereof. Only criminal proceedings, governed by Section 11, would operate prospectively, he held..No Leeway to False Admissions.Merely because the government had invested scarce economic and other resources in educating those who secured admissions on the basis of false certificates, it would not be a ground to not render the admissions invalid and non est, the court ruled..“Societal good lies in ensuring probity”, Justice Chandrachud wrote. He also held,.“the court, as a vital institution of democratic governance, must be firm in sending out a principled message that there is no incentive other than for behaviour compliant with rules and deviance will meet severe reprimands of the law.”.Read Judgment:
