Citation: Rupali Kashinath Shigwan @ Rupali Amol Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 10970 of 2026, Bombay High Court (Justices R.I. Chagla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla), decided on 05.10.2026 | 2026:BHC-AS:40252-DB
A person who relies on a document found to be fabricated, or tampers with a family tree, does not come to the High Court with clean hands and cannot ask for discretionary relief. Where a caste certificate is invalidated, the election of the person is deemed to have ended from the date of contesting the election under Section 10(4) of the amended Act.
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a municipal councillor’s petition against the cancellation of her Kunbi (OBC) caste certificate, holding that the scrutiny committee was entitled to order a second inquiry on one document without discarding the first report.
Rupali Shigwan won a Ward 8 seat in the Mahad Municipal Council in December 2025. When she applied to the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, to validate her 2016 certificate, her defeated rival complained that her father’s school leaving certificate recorded his caste as “Hindu Maratha” and that she had shown a stranger as her paternal uncle in the family tree. The uncle himself filed an affidavit saying that her father had “borrowed” his caste certificate. The first vigilance report of 29 May 2026 found her grandfather’s 1932 birth record (Form 14) in order, but the committee asked for a re-examination of that document. The second report found re-writing, cancellation and a change of ink, and the committee cancelled her certificate on 10 August 2026. The Collector then disqualified her as a councillor. She argued before the High Court that the committee never recorded reasons for discarding the first report, as Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Caste Certificate Rules requires. Justices R.I. Chagla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla disagreed. They said vigilance findings are not binding and are only meant to help the committee, so it can ask for a further report. They held that the Rule 17(7) duty to give reasons applies only when the whole report is rejected, but here only one document was sent for re-examination, she was given the second report and the chance to respond, and the committee gave reasons. The court itself noted that the entry on its face showed re-writing and a change of ink. It refused to send the case back to consider a new 1893 document she had placed before it, saying that she had not come with clean hands, relying on a document it found fabricated and a tampered family tree. It also held that the new appeal under Section 6B (in force since 22 July 2026) could not be used because the State admitted that no procedure had been set up for OBC appeals. Under Section 10(4) of the amended Act, her election was deemed to have ended from the date she contested, and the petition was dismissed without costs.