The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order cancelling the caste certificate of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation corporator Kalpana Navlekar-Kodekar, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice.
In its October 13, 2026, oral judgment, Justice Nisha M. Thakore set aside the August 6 order issued by the Joint Director of the Developing Castes Welfare Department. The court found that the authority had failed to provide the hearing required under an earlier High Court direction.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
Issue/Event: Gujarat High Court quashes the order cancelling a Congress corporator’s caste certificate.
Location: Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
Authority/Organisation: Gujarat High Court and the Developing Castes Welfare Department.
Action Taken: The court restored the proceedings to the stage of the show-cause notice and directed a fresh hearing and reasoned decision.
Impact: The earlier cancellation order has been set aside, but the certificate’s validity remains unresolved.
The dispute concerns Kodekar, a Congress corporator elected from Ahmedabad’s Kubernagar ward in the April 2026 civic elections. She secured 15,214 votes, defeating her rival, who received 15,113 votes.
The controversy over her caste certificate continued after the election. Following show-cause notices issued in May and June, Kodekar approached the High Court in July. During the earlier proceedings, the court directed the authority to give her an adequate opportunity to present her case before passing a reasoned order.
However, the certificate was cancelled on August 6. Kodekar subsequently challenged that decision, arguing that the authority had acted without providing the hearing required by the court.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
The judgment highlights the importance of due process in administrative decisions, particularly when an order affects an elected representative’s legal position. Authorities must follow judicial directions and provide a meaningful opportunity for affected individuals to respond before reaching a decision. Setting aside an order on procedural grounds does not automatically settle the underlying dispute. For voters and civic observers, the case also illustrates the distinction between a court reviewing the legality of an administrative process and a court deciding the substantive validity of a document.
During the latest proceedings, the state government submitted an affidavit explaining that the order had been passed inadvertently and without extending an opportunity of hearing. The state also assured the court that a fresh decision would be taken in accordance with the law.
The High Court rejected the explanation offered for disregarding its earlier directions and quashed the cancellation order. It restored the proceedings to the stage at which Kodekar can submit her reply to the show-cause notice.
The competent authority has been directed to issue a fresh hearing notice, consider the submissions of the parties and pass a reasoned decision within two months of receiving the judgment. Any fresh adverse order must also be implemented only after being served on Kodekar, with a two-week interval as directed by the court.
The ruling does not establish that Kodekar’s caste certificate is valid. Instead, it requires the authority to reconsider the matter by following the prescribed legal procedure.
A separate criminal case involving allegations concerning school records submitted with her election affidavit is also pending in the broader controversy. Those allegations are distinct from the High Court’s decision on the procedure followed in cancelling the caste certificate.
