Nagpur: The constitutional validity of Maharashtra govt’s 2026 amendments to the law governing the issuance and verification of caste certificates has been challenged before the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court. The bench recently issued notices to the state and advocate general, seeking a reply by the next hearing on Nov 4.Halbi Adim Jamat Mandal from Yavatmal filed a petition challenging amendments made through Maharashtra Act, 2026, to the ‘Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000’. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas heard the matter.One of the principal objections raised in petition concerns power of caste scrutiny committees to review their own orders “suo motu without prescribing any time limit”. Petitioner said the earlier law did not confer such a power and various benches, including a full bench of high court, had held that scrutiny committees could not exercise such jurisdiction.The petition referred to the case of Murlidhar Kisan Mohol, in which the court on June 18, 2026, held that a review order passed by a scrutiny committee was without jurisdiction and void.Another objection concerns treatment of “bogus” and “false” caste certificates. The petitioner contended the amendment treats the two categories alike, potentially placing a person who failed to produce the required evidence in the same category as someone who deliberately obtained a false certificate.The petition also challenged the provision appointing divisional commissioners as appellate authorities. It contended that no separate mechanism or rules have been prescribed for the appellate authority and that its judicial composition has not been clearly defined.The petitioner further claimed that the amendments were made without the necessary consultation with the concerned national commissions under the Constitution.Ashwin Deshpande appeared for the petitioner and was assisted by VH Pandey. PP Pendke represented the govt in the matter.
