Karnataka HC dismisses Congress MLA Manjunatha’s appeal in false caste certificate case

“There is a serious allegation of obtaining a false caste certificate against the appellant,” the bench observed, adding that the state is free to initiate appropriate criminal or administrative proceedings.

The dispute

The legal battle dates back to 2018, when the High Court first set aside Manjunatha’s election on the grounds of a false caste claim. While the Budga Jangam community is a notified Scheduled Caste, the Byragi community is classified under Category-I of Other Backward Classes (OBC).

The appellant applied for a caste certificate in 2008, which was rejected. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant produced another caste certificate dated April 3, 2012, purportedly issued in pursuance of his application in 2012.

The DCVC inquiry, directed by the Supreme Court in 2020, found overwhelming evidence against the MLA. The DCVC committee members visited Kottur village and examined several people, and neither any person in the village nor the neighbouring village had obtained verification of the ‘Budga Jangam’ caste certificate.

Manjunatha’s own school records consistently listed his caste as ‘Byragi’. His parents never claimed SC status or availed of related benefits. Also, sale deeds for immovable properties transacted by his relatives clearly identified them as members of the Byragi community.

Manjunatha’s appeal largely rested on a procedural technicality, arguing that the single judge’s order should be set aside because it was pronounced eight months after being reserved. He cited the Supreme Court’s Anil Rai v. State of Bihar guidelines regarding judicial delays.

Final verdict

However, the bench clarified that if the appellant desired that the matter be heard afresh after the period of six months from the date of reserving the judgment had expired, nothing precluded him from filing an application. Since no such application had been filed, the court ruled that he could not challenge the order on that ground alone.

“The appellant cannot seek the setting aside of the impugned order on this ground alone,” the court ruled, attributing part of the notification delay to the intervening winter vacation.

However, the division bench rejected this argument, noting that Manjunatha had failed to file an application to move the case to another bench after the six-month mark had passed.

In its concluding remarks, the court emphasised the distinction between the two communities. The Byragi caste is not a scheduled caste. Thus, it is not open to the DCVC or the authority to proceed on the basis that a person belonging to the Byragi community may also be considered a member of the Budga Jangam community.

Dismissing the appeal, the court held that there are sufficient grounds and material on record supporting the DCVC’s conclusion that the appellant belongs to the Byragi community and not the Budga Jangam community.