Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Neelmani Thakur on 22 July, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 122 OF 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NEELMANI THAKUR & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 11856 OF 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KIRANBALA SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. These civil appeals are proposed to be disposed of by this common
judgment and order, having regard to the commonality of facts and
questions of law involved.
2. The lead appeal1 is directed against a judgment and order dated 31 st
March, 2015 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur 2 on a writ petition 3 instituted by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
first respondent4.
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.07.23
17:01:44 IST
Reason:
1 Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2016
2 High Court
3 Writ Petition No. 6448 of 2001
4 Neelmani Thakur
2
3. In the connected appeal5, under assail is a judgment and order dated
20th November, 2014 of the High Court on a writ petition 6 instituted by the
first respondent7.
4. Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh obtained certificates from the
competent authority certifying that they belong to ‘Gond’ tribe, which is a
Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of such certificates, they secured public
employment in the reserved category.
5. It is not in dispute that Kiranbala Singh has around one and a half
years to retire on attaining the age of superannuation whereas Neelmani
Thakur has around 7-8 years left to attain the age of superannuation.
6. Anonymous complaints were lodged, both against Neelmani Thakur
and Kiranbala Singh, alleging that they had obtained false Scheduled Tribe
certificates. Such complaints were investigated in terms of the directions
issued by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. State of
Maharashtra8.
7. The High-Power Scrutiny Committee9 returned findings that the
Scheduled Tribe certificates issued in favour of Neelmani Thakur and
Kiranbala Singh were obtained by them based on misrepresentation. Since
both of them did not belong to the ‘Gond’ Tribe, the certificates were
cancelled.
8. This resulted in action being taken by the appellants. Neelmani
Thakur and Kiranbala Singh were called upon to show cause why their
services should not be terminated. A recommendation was, in fact, made
5 Civil Appeal No. 11856 of 2025
6 Writ Petition No. 5036 of 2014
7 Kiranbala Singh
8 (1994) 6 SCC 241
9 Scrutiny Committee
3
for terminating the service of Kiranbala Singh while termination of
Neelmani Thakur’s service was in contemplation.
9. It is at this stage that Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh
approached the High Court with their respective writ petitions. Both
obtained interim relief, pursuant to which they continued in service.
10. The same learned Judge of the High Court had the occasion to deal
with the writ petitions instituted by Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh.
Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Dattu Namdev Thakur vs.
State of Maharashtra10 and Shalini vs. New English High School
Association11, the High Court disposed of both the writ petitions by
observing that since Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh had been in
service for quite some time, their services need not be disturbed.
However, it was also observed that they shall not be entitled to any
benefit of reservation in terms of the Scheduled Tribe certificates issued in
their favour.
11. In so disposing of the writ petitions, the learned Judge did not
examine the merits of the challenge laid by Neelmani Thakur and
Kiranbala Singh to the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee.
12. Challenge being laid by the appellants to the orders of disposal of
the writ petitions, this Court granted leave to appeal.
13. Much water has flown under the bridge since the impugned orders
were passed by the learned Judge. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India vs.
Jagdish Balaram Bahira12 has laid down the law in the following terms:
10 (2012) 1 SCC 549
11 (2013) 16 SCC 526
12 (2017) 8 SCC 670
4“69. For these reasons, we hold and declare that:
69.1. The directions which were issued by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in para 38 of the decision in Milind were in
pursuance of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution;
69.2. Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil which was
rendered on 2-9-1994, the regime which held the field in
pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure
for:
(a) the issuance of caste certificates;
(b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by
Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the State
Government;
(c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation into the
authenticity of the claim;
(d) cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where
the claim is found to be false or not genuine;
(e) withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an
appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational
institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained
on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category;
and
(f) prosecution for a criminal offence.
69.3. The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and in
Dattatray which were rendered by Benches of three Judges laid
down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an
individual—such as an appointment to a post or admission to an
educational institution—on the basis that the candidate belongs
to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the
invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would
result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission
being rendered void or non est.
69.4. The exception to the above doctrine was in those cases
where this Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution to render complete justice;
69.5. By Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 there is a legislative
codification of the broad principles enunciated in Madhuri Patil.
The legislation provides a statutory framework for regulating
the issuance of caste certificates (Section 4); constitution of
Scrutiny Committees for verification of claims (Section 6);
submission of applications for verification of caste certificates
[Sections 6(2) and 6(3)]; cancellation of caste certificates
(Section 7); burden of proof (Section 8); withdrawal of benefits
obtained upon the invalidation of the claim (Section 10); and
initiation of prosecution (Section 11), amongst other things;
69.6. The power conferred by Section 7 upon the Scrutiny
Committee to verify a claim is both in respect of caste
certificates issued prior to and subsequent to the enforcement
of the Act on 18-10-2001. Finality does not attach to a caste
5
certificate (or to the claim to receive benefits) where the claim
of the individual to belong to a reserved caste, tribe or class is
yet to be verified by the Scrutiny Committee;
69.7. Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste
claim which has been found to be false and is invalidated is a
necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the
caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity would arise;
69.8. The decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini of two
learned Judges are overruled. Shalini, insofar as it stipulates a
requirement of a dishonest intent for the application of the
provision of Section 10 is, with respect, erroneous and does not
reflect the correct position in law;
69.9. Mens rea is an ingredient of the penal provisions
contained in Section 11. Section 11 is prospective and would
apply in those situations where the act constituting the offence
has taken place after the date of its enforcement;
69.10. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High
Court in Arun is manifestly erroneous and is overruled; and
69.11. Though the power of the Supreme Court under Article
142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power vested in the
Court for rendering complete justice and is a power which is
couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction must
have due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as
Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 holds the field.”
14. It would appear from the aforesaid extract that Shalini (supra) was
expressly overruled. Though Dattu (supra) was noticed by Jagdish
(supra), it was neither expressly nor impliedly overruled. The facts in
Dattu (supra) were different and we have no hesitation to observe that
the decision was given in the peculiar facts of that case.
15. It is, however, based on the decision in Jagdish (supra) that Mr.
Pattabhiram, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Madhya
Pradesh/appellants contends that the impugned orders cannot be
sustained.
16. Relief granted by the High Court in favour of Neelmani Thakur and
Kiranbala Singh relying on Shalini (supra), which stands overruled, and
Dattu (supra), which turned on its own facts, thus, becomes suspect.
17. Appearing on behalf of Kiranbala Singh, Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned
6
senior counsel contends that Jagdish (supra) being a decision rendered
by this Court post disposal of the writ petition of Kiranbala Singh, the
learned Judge had no occasion to consider the same. Besides, despite an
intra-court appeal being available to the appellants, the order of the
learned Judge was not carried in appeal. The appellate court in the High
Court, therefore, had no occasion to consider Jagdish (supra). That apart,
though the law laid down in Jagdish (supra) could be applicable if the
certificate has been erroneously issued and the recipient of the certificate
was not entitled to any benefit of reservation, the question as to whether
the Scrutiny Committee was right in observing that Kiranbala Singh did not
belong to Gond tribe resulting in cancellation of the certificate, which is
one of the issues raised in the writ petition, had not been examined by the
learned Judge. In such circumstances, the challenge to the decision of the
Scrutiny Committee would remain undecided if we were to allow the
connected civil appeal based on Jagdish (supra) only, without giving an
opportunity to Kiranbala Singh to establish her claim. He, therefore
submits that this is a fit case where a remand is called for.
18. Similar submission has been advanced by Mr. Danish Zubair Khan,
learned counsel for Neelmani Thakur.
19. On the date the writ petitions of Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala
Singh were disposed of, Dattu (supra) and Shalini (supra) were
governing the field. The learned Judge did not consider it necessary to
examine the claims of Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh as to legality
and correctness of the impugned decisions of the Scrutiny Committee on
its own merits since both of them succeeded on a different point.
20. Therefore, Mr. Gupta and Mr. Khan are right in contending that no
7
decision has been rendered by the High Court on the aspect of legality and
correctness of the decisions of the Scrutiny Committee.
21. Having heard the contentions advanced on behalf of Neelmani
Thakur and Kiranbala Singh and on perusal of the orders of the High Court
under challenge, we are inclined to remand the cases to the High Court for
a fresh decision in the light of the observations made hereunder.
22. The impugned orders of the High Court disposing of the writ
petitions of Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh are set aside and we
order a remand. This would result in revival of Writ Petition No. 6448 of
2001 and Writ Petition No. 5036 of 2014 on the file of the High Court.
23. We request the High Court to consider the writ petitions afresh,
more particularly the aspect of challenge laid by Neelmani Thakur and
Kiranbala Singh to the legality and correctness of the impugned decisions
of the Scrutiny Committee holding that both of them do not belong to
Gond tribe.
24. For the present, we do not feel inclined to require Neelmani Thakur
and Kiranbala Singh to step down from the posts held by them; they may
discharge the duties of the posts on which they have been appointed but
such continuance shall be subject to and abide by the decision to be given
on their writ petitions by the High Court on remand.
25. In the event, the High Court upon hearing the parties is of the
opinion that the Scheduled Tribe certificates did not warrant cancellation
by the Scrutiny Committee, appropriate orders may be passed protecting
the interests of Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh. They may be
ordered to be entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of
superannuation and be paid their retiral benefits in accordance with law.
8
26. On the contrary, if the High Court returns a finding that the
Scheduled Tribe certificates were obtained by Neelmani Thakur and
Kiranbala Singh without being members of ‘Gond’ tribe by practicing fraud,
consequences ought and should follow. The High Court shall be at liberty
to pass appropriate orders, including directions that Neelmani Thakur and
Kiranbala Singh may not be continued in service and that they would not
be entitled to any retiral benefits. However, in such an eventuality, having
regard to the fact that Neelmani Thakur and Kiranbala Singh have served
for about 29 years and 30 years, respectively, the High Court may not, in
the exercise of its discretion, direct recovery of any amount paid to them
for the service they have already rendered to the State.
27. Since we have ordered a remand and the writ petitions stand
revived, it would be eminently desirable if such petitions are decided prior
to Kiranbala Singh attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, we
request the roster Bench of the High Court to assign top priority to the writ
petitions and make sincere endeavour to finally dispose of the same by
February, 2027.
28. The parties are requested to cooperate with the High Court to secure
compliance of this order.
29. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of on the above terms.
30. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
……………………………………..J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
9
………………………………………J.
[SHEEL NAGU]
New Delhi;
July 22, 2026.
10
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 122/2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NEELMANI THAKUR & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 11856/2025 (III)
IA No. 102198/2025 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 1/2015 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 2/2015 – PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES
Date : 22-07-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Mr.VVVMBNS Pattabhiram, Adv.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
Mr. Karan Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ravin Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Archana, Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order placed
on the file.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
11
