LILLY KUTTY versus SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, S.C. AND S.T. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 06-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

LILLY KUTTY 
A
v. 
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, S.C. AND S.T. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 6, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B
Constitution of India-Articles l 4, l 36, 34 l and 342-Kerala (Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulations of Issue of Community Certificate 
Act, 1996-Seclions 8, 9, JO, 12, 16, 17 and 26-Appellant, claimed to be a C
Scheduled Caste on basis of a Caste Certificate, contested and won the election 
for office of the President of Gram Panc/:zayat reserved for Scheduled Caste-
Comp/aint under the Act by rival candidate challenging the caste status and 
eligibility of the appellant to contest the election-Caste Scrutiny Committee 
recording a finding that the appellant do not belong to Scheduled Caste and 
that the certificate has been obtained fraudulently by misrepresentation, [ 
cancelled that appellant's caste certificate and directed the State to take 
consequential action-High Court dismissed the appeal confirming the findings 
of the committee-Correctness of-Held, findings of fact are not subject to 
judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution-Complaint by the rival 
candidate is proper and legal-Onus of proof is on th~ person who claims to 
be a Scheduled Caste in accordance with law-Proceedings before the I 
Committee were legal, valid and lawful and the certificate was rightly directed 
to be cancelled-Obtaining a false caste certificate with a view to obtain 
undue privilege under the Constitution must be treated as a fraud on the 
Constitution-Hence, consequential actions can be taken in pursuance of 
cancellation of caste certificate. 
] 
Appellant, who claimed to be a Hindu Pulayan-Scheduled Caste 
on th!! basis of a certificate, contested an election against 3rd respondent 
for the office of the President of Gram Panchayat, which was reserv.ed 
for Scheduled Caste. The appellant won the election. The 3rd respondent 
filed a complaint before the State under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and ( 
Scheduled Tribes) Regulations of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996 
alleging that the appellant is a Christian and not a Scheduled Caste and 
hence could not have contested for the office. A Caste Scrutiny Committee, 
constituted under the Act, on the basis of the evidence held that the 
87 
I 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A appellant was a Christian and did not belong to Hindu Pulayan-Schedule 
Caste. The Committee, cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant 
holding that it was obtained fraudulently by misrepresentation. An appeal 
preferred by the appellant under the Act before High Court was dismissed 
confirming the findings of the Committee. 
B 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that she belongs to 
Hindu Pulayan-Schedule Caste Community since her parents belonged 
to that Community at the time of their marriage and at the time of the 
birth of the appellant and hence the certificate issued to her could not have 
been cancelled; and that the burden to prove should have been cast on 
C respondent no.3 that she is a Christian and not on the appellant to prove 
that she belonged to that Community. 
The appellant filed an application raising additional grounds 
contending that in view of Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India and 
section 153(14) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 it was not open to 
D the respondents to enquire into eligibility or status of the appellant; that 
the only remedy available to the 3rd respondent was to file an election 
petition. 
The respondents contended that the findings recorded by the Caste 
Scrutiny Committee and confirmed by the high Court cannot be assailed 
E under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; that the Committee, on the 
basis of the documentary evidence, considered the case and by observing 
principles of natural justice and fair play came to the conclusion that the 
appellant was a born Christian; that the burden was not discharged by 
the appellant under the Act and hence the action taken against her could 
F not be said to be illegal or unlawful; that the appellant claimed to be a 
Hindu Pulayan-Scheduled Caste only with a view to get undeserving 
benefits and since she was a Christian, the certificate was liable to be 
cancelled. 
The respondents, objecting to the application, contended that the 
G additional grounds raised by the appellant were not taken before the 
Scrutiny Committee or the High Court and such new plea should not be 
allowed to be raised; and that Articl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.