Latest news with #2000Act
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Aurangabad bench of HC refers caste certificate recall powers to larger bench
MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday asked a larger bench to decide whether caste scrutiny committees in Maharashtra can cancel their own orders if a caste validity certificate is found to have been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Aurangabad bench of HC refers caste certificate recall powers to larger bench The reference was made by justices Manish Pitale and YG Khobragade while hearing petitions by four residents of Jamb village in Nanded district — Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe. They had challenged a May 15, 2025 order of the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar headquarters) cancelling their caste validity certificates for alleged fraud and concealment of information. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar argued that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 gives scrutiny committees no legal power to review or recall their own decisions. He cited earlier high court rulings — Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and Bharat Nagu Garud — which held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio (a legal term meaning its job in that matter is finished) and only the High Court can overturn it under Article 226 of the Constitution. Countering this, additional government pleaders SP Sonpawale and Saie S Joshi said that certificates obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to stand, even if the 2000 Act is silent on recall powers. They relied on the Rajeshwar Baburao Bone case, in which the High Court and Supreme Court upheld cancellation of a fraudulently obtained caste certificate, stressing that fraud vitiates all legal acts. The bench noted that different benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue. While unchecked recall powers could unsettle vested rights, the judges said, the inability to correct fraudulent outcomes would undermine the caste verification process. They observed that scrutiny committees, being quasi-judicial bodies with some powers of a civil court, are often better placed than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 'It cannot be countenanced,' the court remarked, 'that validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications or suppression of material facts cannot be reopened when such fraud is noticed subsequently.' Citing the need for an authoritative ruling, the bench framed five questions for the larger bench, including: Whether scrutiny committees under the 2000 Act have the power to recall orders obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. If so, what limits and safeguards should apply to prevent misuse. Whether such safeguards could include requiring prior leave of the High Court. And whether earlier rulings in Umbarje and Garud should be revisited on this point. The matter will now go to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign it to a larger bench.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay HC's larger Bench to settle if caste scrutiny committees have power to recall orders based on fraud
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether caste scrutiny committees under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, can recall their own orders if caste validity certificates were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The referral was made by a Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on August 4, 2025. The court was hearing petitions filed by Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe, and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe, all residents of Jamb village in Nanded district, who challenged the cancellation of their caste validity certificates by the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, headquartered at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The committee revoked their certificates on May 15, 2025, citing fraud and suppression of relevant facts. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar, argued that scrutiny committees do not have the statutory authority to review or recall their decisions. They relied on judgments such as Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje v. State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra, where the High Court had held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio and that only the High Court under Article 226 can interfere. Additional Government pleaders S.P. Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi argued that scrutiny committees must retain the power to recall certificates obtained by fraud, even if such power is not expressly provided in the 2000 Act. They cited judgments including Rajeshwar Baburao Bone, where the High Court and Supreme Court upheld a committee's decision to cancel a fraudulently obtained certificate. The State maintained that fraud vitiates every legal act and cannot be protected by procedural limitations. After hearing the argument, the Bench noted that different Benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue and observed that while excessive use of recall powers could destabilize settled rights, preventing scrutiny committees from correcting fraudulent outcomes would undermine the integrity of the validation process. It noted that scrutiny committees have quasi-judicial powers and are better positioned than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 'But, that in itself cannot be the basis to hold that in no circumstances can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its inherent power of recalling its earlier order, which has been obtained on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It cannot be countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases,' the court order said. It is also relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee is better equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it has some powers akin to those of a civil court, as compared to this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it added. The purity of the process, once found to be polluted has to be dealt with and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration that need to be authoritatively settled by a larger Bench of this Court, the Bench observed. 'Hence, we take recourse to Rule 9(A) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to formulate questions to be answered by a larger bench in the light of apparent conflict in the aforementioned views of various division benches of this Court.' The court has asked five questions: (i) Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? (ii) Being a creature of the statute i.e. the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee does not have power of substantive review due to absence of any such provision under the said statute, but does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to recall its own order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? (iii) If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied so that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is avoided? (iv) Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking leave of the High Court, in the light of the stipulation in Section 7(2) of the Act of 2000? (v) Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), need to be revisited to the limited extent indicated above? The matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for constituting an appropriate larger bench to decide the issue.
Hindustan Times
23-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
SC sets aside jail term of man found juvenile in rape case, upholds conviction
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of an accused for raping a minor girl in 1988 but set aside his jail term after finding him to be a juvenile on the date of crime. SC sets aside jail term of man found juvenile in rape case, upholds conviction A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said after the accused claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the crime, the apex court asked the district and sessions judge at Ajmer to conduct an inquiry into his claims. The bench, upon examining the inquiry report, said the accused was aged 16-years-two-months-and-three days on the date of crime on November 17, 1988. "The appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime," the bench said. It said authoritative judgments of the top court have categorically held that plea of juvenility could be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage, even after disposal of the case. The bench said as the accused was then a juvenile, the provisions as contained in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 would apply. "Consequently, the sentence as imposed by the trial court and upheld by the high court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot sustain. We order accordingly," the bench held. Referring the case to the board for passing appropriate orders in light of Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act, the bench directed the accused to appear before the Board on September 15. While section 15 of the 2000 Act deals with order that may be passed regarding juvenile, Section 16 relates to order that may not be passed against juvenile. The top court's verdict came on the accused's appeal against a July 2024 verdict of the Rajasthan High Court. The high court had confirmed his conviction and five-year sentence awarded by a trial court in the case. His counsel, in the apex court, highlighted the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case and said the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. The bench noted the survivor was firm in her cross-examination supported by the medical evidence. Her testimony was found "worthy of credence" requiring no corroboration that could form the sole basis for conviction. "Prosecution's case is not founded solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply supported by the statements of other witnesses and corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively establish the case of the prosecution," the top court said. It said the findings recorded with regard to his conviction stood duly established beyond doubt. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
23-07-2025
- News18
SC sets aside jail term of man found juvenile in rape case, upholds conviction
New Delhi, Jul 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of an accused for raping a minor girl in 1988 but set aside his jail term after finding him to be a juvenile on the date of crime. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said after the accused claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the crime, the apex court asked the district and sessions judge at Ajmer to conduct an inquiry into his claims. The bench, upon examining the inquiry report, said the accused was aged 16-years-two-months-and-three days on the date of crime on November 17, 1988. 'The appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime," the bench said. It said authoritative judgments of the top court have categorically held that plea of juvenility could be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage, even after disposal of the case. The bench said as the accused was then a juvenile, the provisions as contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would apply. 'Consequently, the sentence as imposed by the trial court and upheld by the high court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot sustain. We order accordingly," the bench held. While section 15 of the 2000 Act deals with order that may be passed regarding juvenile, Section 16 relates to order that may not be passed against juvenile. The top court's verdict came on the accused's appeal against a July 2024 verdict of the Rajasthan High Court. The high court had confirmed his conviction and five-year sentence awarded by a trial court in the case. His counsel, in the apex court, highlighted the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case and said the accused was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. The bench noted the survivor was firm in her cross-examination supported by the medical evidence. Her testimony was found 'worthy of credence" requiring no corroboration that could form the sole basis for conviction. 'Prosecution's case is not founded solely on the testimony of the victim; rather, it is amply supported by the statements of other witnesses and corroborating medical evidence, all of which collectively establish the case of the prosecution," the top court said. It said the findings recorded with regard to his conviction stood duly established beyond doubt. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 21:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
South Wales Argus
20-07-2025
- South Wales Argus
Monmouthshire offers options for wild camping enthusiasts
The county is home to a variety of campsites, from family-friendly parks to rustic getaways. This comes as the Open Spaces Society has called for wild camping to be legalised across all open country in England and Wales, following a Supreme Court decision. Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, said: "What is valid for the Dartmoor commons is valid for our open countryside generally. "We want the public to have a right to wild camp on access land designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 [the 2000 Act] in England and Wales." While wild camping remains restricted in most areas, Monmouthshire offers plenty of sites for those seeking a night under the stars with a few more comforts. Red Sky at Night Campsite in Monmouthshire is set on a working family farm and offers peaceful pitches, scenic walks, and dark skies. Red Sky at Night campsite (Image: Visit Monmouthshire) The site describes itself as "the perfect place to escape the hustle and bustle of day to day life and enjoy a peaceful, yet exhilarating camping experience." Facilities include a compost loo and a covered sink area. For a touch of glamping, 'Blodwyn the Bell Tent' sits at the edge of the site, offering privacy and panoramic views. Another option is Pont Kemys Caravan and Camping Park, located in Chainbridge, Abergavenny. Pont Kemys Caravan and Camping Park (Image: Visit Monmouthshire) The site is just eight miles from Abergavenny and four miles from Usk, and is close to the Usk Valley Walk and Cycle Route 42. Pont Kemys is Monmouthshire's only five-star touring caravan park, offering a wide range of facilities. These include a fully-equipped facilities block, free wifi, an adult-only area with fully serviced super-pitches, a laundry room, and a television lounge. All caravan pitches come with electric hook-ups, and there is a reception area and shop on site. Penydre Caravan and Camping Site in Llanfihangel Crucorney offers a quieter stay, with space for 12 caravans and 12 tents. Penydre Caravan and Camping Site (Image: Visit Monmouthshire) Located five miles from Abergavenny, the site is close to a variety of outdoor activities, including pony trekking, gliding, mountain biking, and caving. Hendre Farmhouse Orchard Campsite in Wonastow is set on the historic Offa's Dyke and offers spacious pitches, modern facilities, and easy access to nearby attractions. Hendre Farmhouse Orchard Campsite (Image: Visit Monmouthshire) The site is pet-friendly by prior arrangement and costs start from £20 per night. Highlands Camping and Caravan Site in New Mills, Whitebrook, offers panoramic views of the Welsh hills and a relaxed, rural setting. Highlands Camping & Caravan Site (Image: Visit Monmouthshire) Pitches are mostly grass and sheltered by trees, with electric hook-ups available for tents, campervans, and motorhomes. The site also features a hand-crafted Orchard Wagon for glamping, equipped with a wood burner, large bed, and electricity. Basic facilities include a water tap, cold water washing-up area, and a trailer with two hot showers and two flush toilets. With its scenic landscapes and range of camping options, Monmouthshire offers the perfect setting for anyone looking to reconnect with nature and enjoy a night under the stars.
