2018 (8) TMI 2058 - SC - Indian Laws

Time limitation for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor - mandatory in nature or not? - failure on the part of person elected as Councilor to produce the caste validity certificate within the period of six months from the date on which he was declared elected - validation of caste claim of elected Councilor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would automatically result into termination of such Councilor with retrospective operation - HELD THAT - Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 and Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act (Act No. 59 of 1949) require a member of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes to enclose with the nomination for election his/her Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and also the Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee - A proviso to the aforesaid main provision of the statute was brought in subsequently which permitted a candidate to file his/her nomination even in the absence of the validity certificate provided he/she encloses with the nomination a true copy of the application filed by him/her before the Scrutiny Committee and an undertaking that he/she shall submit within a period of six months from the date of his/her election the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. The High Court very rightly came to the aforesaid conclusion along with the further finding that equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory. In fact the High Court has supported its decision by weighty reasons to hold that reading the provisions to be directory would virtually amount to rendering the same to be negatory - Compounded is the fact that the proviso was deleted in the year 2008 and reintroduced in the year 2012. The same would go to show that sans the proviso the main provision would debar a candidate who does not possess a validity certificate from contesting the election as a reserved category candidate. If that is so the proviso has to be strictly construed and the deeming provision contained in the second proviso together with the plain language used can lead to only one conclusion namely that the legislative intent was to make the provision of the statute mandatory irrespective of individual hardships. The High Court of Bombay was perfectly justified in coming to the impugned conclusion on the basis of the reasoning that was adopted which is affirmed - SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the time limit under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor; Effect of failure to produce validity certificate on election termination; Validation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee beyond prescribed period; Mandatory nature of Section 9A provisions.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the interpretation of Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, focusing on the time limit for submitting caste validity certificates by elected councilors. The Court addressed whether the failure to produce the certificate within six months of election automatically terminates the election, irrespective of circumstances beyond the individual's control. The Court also examined whether validation of caste claims beyond the prescribed period results in retrospective termination. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that Section 9A is mandatory, dismissing the petitioners' claims against the full Bench's ruling.

The Court highlighted the requirements of Section 9A and Section 5B of related Acts, mandating candidates from reserved categories to submit caste and validity certificates with their nominations. The Court noted a proviso allowing nomination without the certificate if accompanied by an application and an undertaking to submit the validity certificate within six months of election. Failure to meet this deadline results in retrospective termination and disqualification as a councilor.

The Supreme Court supported the High Court's reasoning that Section 9A's provisions are mandatory, emphasizing that individual equities cannot override statutory requirements. The Court noted the deletion and reintroduction of the proviso, indicating the legislature's intent to enforce strict compliance. The Court concluded that the proviso's language and legislative history confirm the mandatory nature of the statute, regardless of individual hardships. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed all special leave petitions and pending applications challenging the ruling.