Bombay High Court Upholds Vacancy of Former BMC Corporator Vishakha Raut's Seat
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by former Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation corporator Vishakha Raut challenging the Municipal Commissioner's decision to declare her seat vacant following the invalidation of her caste certificate. Raut was elected to the civic body from Ward No. 191 in Mumbai, a constituency reserved for Other Backward Classes women.
The District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Palghar, invalidated Raut's Kunbi caste certificate on August 20, 2026. Five days later, the Municipal Commissioner declared her seat vacant and recommended her disqualification from contesting elections for a period of six years.
Raut challenged the commissioner's action before the High Court, contending that she was entitled to protection under a recently amended provision of the Maharashtra caste certificate law. She argued that Section 10(5) provided a window to challenge the invalidation order before any benefits secured on the basis of the caste certificate could be withdrawn.
The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the invalidation had a direct and retrospective effect on her election. The bench noted that Section 10(4) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category Caste Certificate Act provides that an election secured on the basis of an invalid caste certificate is deemed to have been terminated retrospectively.
The bench observed that the deeming effect brought about by subsection 4 has remained untouched. It further noted that Section 10(5) dealt with a different aspect of the law and could not dilute the consequences flowing from Section 10(4). The court stated that a 30-day limitation from the lapse of an appeal for withdrawal of benefits does not dilute or extinguish the retrospective termination of the election.
The court held that the Municipal Commissioner acted lawfully under Section 16(1C) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, as the disqualification followed directly from the invalidation of the certificate. The bench also turned down Raut's argument regarding the absence of a finding of fraud against her, stating that statutory consequences follow once a certificate is found invalid without requiring a separate finding of fraud.
While dismissing the petition, the High Court clarified that its observations were limited to the challenge against the Municipal Commissioner's order. It kept all substantive issues open in Raut's pending appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, and granted her liberty to seek an expedited hearing.
