Karnataka high court dismisses Congress MLA’s appeal in false caste certificate case

Bengaluru: In a big setback for G Manjunatha, presently Congress MLA from Kolar constituency, a division bench of the Karnataka high court has dismissed his writ appeal in relation to a false caste certificate case.The division bench has also granted liberty to state govt to take suitable action against him for submitting a false caste certificate.On Dec 20, 2023, a single bench dismissed his petition challenging the report of the district caste verification committee (DCVC) dated Oct 27, 2021, seeking consequential direction to confirm the caste certificate issued to him by the competent authority on April 3, 2012, as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste under SC category, as legal and valid."There is a serious allegation of obtaining a false caste certificate against the appellant. There is no dispute that the appellant applied for a caste certificate in 2008, which was rejected. The appellant's appeal against the said decision was also rejected. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant has produced another caste certificate dated April 3, 2012, purportedly issued in pursuance of his application in 2012. However, the tahsildar issued an endorsement clearly stating that the caste certificate was issued by misusing the computer at the tahsildar's office and that there is no record of its issuance. As rightly observed by the single bench, it is open for the state to consider initiating appropriate proceedings in this regard," a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha observed.Manjunatha has claimed though the evidence established that he belonged to the Budaga Jangama caste under SC category, the same was not considered.He further claimed the single bench delayed in delivering the judgment, ie, kept it pending for eight months after reserving the same.However, the division bench observed that they are not agreeable to the contention that a judgment has to be set aside on the ground that it was delivered after a period of eight months of the order being reserved for judgment.The DCVC considered the fact that the appellant's caste was recorded as ‘Byragi' (coming under BC category) in the school records. According to the appellant, his parents erroneously stated their caste is ‘Byragi'. It is also contended that the school authorities had, based on the attire of his parents, recorded their castes as ‘Byragi'. However, the DCVC did not accept the contention and also noted that the transfer certificate (TC) of the appellant mentioned his caste as Byragi and neither the appellant nor his parents had raised any objection at the time. The appellant's contention that the school records have no evidentiary value is unmerited. Whilst the probative value of the caste recorded prior to the issuance of the Presidential Order has a high probative value, the evidentiary value of entries recorded thereafter is lower. However, it is erroneous to suggest that the entries made in the school record have no probative value. There is no evidence or material on record to substantiate that the appellant had, at any time prior to 2008, claimed to belong to the scheduled caste category. Concededly, the appellant did not challenge the recording of his caste as ‘Byragi' in the school records, the division bench further observed while confirming the order passed by the single bench against G Manjunatha.