The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of the MLA from the 335 Ram Kola Assembly Constituency in Kushinagar, holding that an Election Tribunal cannot examine or declare a caste certificate to be false or invalid. The Court ruled that such disputes fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the statutory caste scrutiny committees constituted by the State Government.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Radha Charan, who had contested the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election from the reserved Scheduled Caste constituency of Ram Kola. He sought to set aside the election of the returned candidate, Vinay Prakash Gond, alleging that the latter actually belonged to the Other Backward Class (OBC) and had fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate to contest from a reserved seat.
According to the petitioner, he had objected before the Returning Officer during the nomination process, requesting rejection of the nomination on the ground that the caste certificate was allegedly false. However, the Returning Officer rejected the objection, and the election proceeded, resulting in Vinay Prakash Gond being declared elected.
The returned candidate denied the allegations, stating that he belongs to the Gond community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste under the applicable Government Order. He further submitted that the caste certificate had been issued by the competent authority and had never been cancelled, although a challenge against it remained pending before the District Level Committee.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observation
During the proceedings, the High Court first decided the issue of whether an Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the validity or genuineness of a caste certificate.
Justice Neeraj Tiwari examined the statutory framework governing caste certificates and referred extensively to Supreme Court decisions, including Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles v. State of Maharashtra, and A. Raja v. D. Kumar. The Court noted that these decisions consistently recognise specially constituted Scrutiny Committees as the competent authorities to verify, validate or cancel caste certificates.
The bench observed,
"Election Tribunal is having no authority to verify the correctness of Caste Certificate and it is only for the committees so constituted by the State Government."
The Court further noted that the petitioner's complaint regarding the caste certificate was already pending before the District Level Committee and that the certificate continued to remain valid because it had not been cancelled by any competent authority.
Referring to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in A. Raja v. D. Kumar, the Court reiterated that a duly issued caste certificate cannot be challenged in an election petition and must instead be questioned only under the statutory mechanism created for such disputes.
Decision
Holding that the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the returned candidate's caste certificate, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the election petition was legally unsustainable.
The Court dismissed the election petition, observing that disputes concerning caste certificates must first be decided by the competent scrutiny committees established under the relevant Government Orders. Since the certificate had not been invalidated by those authorities, no ground existed for interference with the returned candidate's election through an election petition. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Radha Charan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Election Petition No. 6 of 2022
Judge: Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
