On February 26, 2026, the High Court, hearing a petition filed by Ranajit Rakshit, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) candidate from the 2023 Panchayat polls, directed the Tamluk Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to cancel the OBC certificate of Smt. Khukurani Mondal Ghorai, Pradhan of Iswarpur Gram Panchayat, within one week. Ghorai had won the Pradhan seat on a Trinamool Congress ticket, contesting a seat reserved for OBC candidates in the Panchayat elections.
The Wheels of Justice have finally turned, exposing yet another glaring example of the Trinamool Congress's brazen fraud and subversion of our Constitutional Reservation system.
Today, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, has unequivocally upheld the Sub-Divisional Officer's finding… pic.twitter.com/5CzWCCWoAk— Suvendu Adhikari (@SuvenduWB) February 25, 2026
Justice Krishna Rao noted sharply that once the SDO conclusively found that Ghorai did not belong to the OBC category, that finding should have immediately triggered cancellation of her certificate. Instead, inaction and delay allowed her to continue in office despite the contrary official finding.
Findings of the Official Inquiry
Under earlier directions from the High Court, the SDO had formed an inquiry committee comprising the Block Development Officer, Joint BDO, and Inspector (BCW), which conducted a field enquiry into social status, rituals, and available documents. While the original 2013 OBC certificate had been legally issued, the committee found no documentary proof that Ghorai belonged to the OBC (Tanti/Tantubaya) community. Instead, local evidence suggested her family and community practices aligned with the Mahishya caste, not classified as OBC.
Based on these findings, the SDO in July 2025 held that she did not belong to the OBC community. However, crucially, no order was passed to formally cancel the certificate until the High Court on Wednesday intervened.
Legal Record and Arguments
In the High Court proceedings, senior counsel for the petitioner argued that once an authority reaches a clear conclusion that a certificate holder does not belong to the reserved category, it is mandatory to cancel the certificate to uphold the constitutional reservation system. They cited established judgments reinforcing that obtaining a false caste certificate amounts to fraud and cannot be allowed to stand, particularly when it has been used to win a reserved seat.
The defence had argued on jurisdictional grounds, claiming cancellation must follow specific statutory mechanisms. However, the Court reaffirmed that the SDO had the authority under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 and the 1995 Rules to initiate cancellation once misrepresentation was established, rendering the argument hollow in the face of the enquiry’s findings.
