Courts Cannot Equate Unlisted Castes

The Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench at Bengaluru, dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of a caste certificate claim. The Bench comprised Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha.

The appellant sought confirmation of a caste certificate dated 03.04.2012 and challenged the report of the District Caste Verification Committee dated 27.10.2021. The core dispute was whether he belonged to Budga Jangam, a Scheduled Caste, or to Byragi, which is treated as an Other Backward Class.

The court noted the historical position under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the later modification orders. It recorded that Beda (Budga) Jangam was included as a Scheduled Caste, while Byragi appears in the socially and educationally backward classes list and in Category-I of the OBC list.

On the facts, the court accepted the finding that the appellant had failed to prove that he belonged to Budga Jangam. The learned Single Judge had already upheld the impugned report on that basis, and the Division Bench found no reason to interfere.

A key part of the reasoning was the court’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent, including Milind. The Bench reiterated that courts cannot accord equivalence to communities not expressly included in the Presidential Order. If a caste is not listed, no inquiry can be used to treat it as included by analogy or equivalence.

The court also referred to the appellant’s school records, which reflected his caste as Byragi. It held that there was sufficient material supporting the DCVC’s conclusion that he belonged to Byragi and not Budga Jangam.

The judgment further recorded a serious allegation that the appellant had obtained a false caste certificate. It noted that an earlier application in 2008 had been rejected, the appeal against that rejection had also failed, and a later certificate dated 03.04.2012 was said to have been issued by misuse of the Tahsildar’s computer, with no record of issuance. The court left it open for the State to consider appropriate proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

Practical takeaway: caste claims must fit the Presidential Order exactly, and courts will not treat one community as equivalent to another for reservation purposes.