Rucha Hemant Chavan vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Anr.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

The order passed by respondent No.1 - the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, dated 17.07.2025, invalidating the caste claim bearing No. 11/502/Edu/022025/115089, is under challenge in the present petition. The petitioner is a student pursuing her education in B.Sc. Agriculture. It is contended that she belongs to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Serial No. 44 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, and that she was issued a caste certificate of ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim on 08.11.2019.

It is further contended that there are consistent pre-Constitutional entries showing that the petitioner’s forefathers were recorded as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe since the time of her great-great-grandfather. All these documents were produced before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee ignored the said documents and invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

It is submitted that, during the vigilance enquiry, the Vigilance Officer collected one adverse document in the name of Leelabai Shankar. The petitioner explained that the said person is neither related to her nor a member of her family. However, relying upon the said isolated entry, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated her caste claim, which has led to the filing of the present petition.

Heard Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who invited our attention to the family tree and submitted that Shankar is the great-great-grandfather of the present petitioner. Shankar had a son and a daughter, namely, Madhav and Malta @ Lila. Madhav had two sons and two daughters, namely, Shashikant, Laxmikant, Sulochana and Suman. Hemant, the father of the present petitioner, is the son of Laxmikant.

He submitted that, on perusal of the impugned order as well as the vigilance report, it reveals that Shankar was recorded as belonging to the ‘Thakur’. Madhav was also recorded as ‘Thakur’ and, thereafter, Laxmikant’was also recorded as ‘Thakur’. There are birth entries showing that the son of Shankar was recorded as ‘Thakur’. Thus, the grandfather of the petitioner was consistently recorded as belonging to the ‘Thakur’.

He submitted that the Committee has relied upon one isolated entry in the name of Leelabai Shankar, wherein she was recorded as ‘Maratha’. However, the vigilance report does not establish any connection between the petitioner and the said Leelabai Shankar. In fact, the petitioner has already explained that the said Leelabai Shankar is not related to her.

Thus, he submitted that, despite consistent entries showing that the forefathers of the petitioner belonged to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, the Committee has invalidated the caste claim without assigning proper reasons. He further submitted that the caste claim was also rejected on the ground of the affinity test and area restrictions.

As regards the affinity test, he submitted that the law is now well settled that the affinity test is not a litmus test. He submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already clarified that the affinity test is not a litmus test and that pre-Constitutional documents carry high probative value.

Per contra, learned AGP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the family tree itself shows the name of Malta @ Lila, whose document was procured during the vigilance enquiry and which contains a contrary entry. Therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected the tribe claim of the present petitioner and no interference is called for.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the various documents placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner, along with her caste claim, had placed before the Committee the family tree and documents containing entries from 1921 to 2019, consistently recording her forefathers as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

The birth entry dated 13.02.1921 relating to the great-great-grandfather of the petitioner records his caste as ‘Thakur’. Thereafter, the birth entry dated 18.07.1946 relating to the son of the great-great-grandfather of the petitioner also records the caste as ‘Thakur’. Similarly, the entry dated 17.06.1952 relating to the grandfather of the petitioner records his caste as ‘Thakur’. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner and the petitioner herself have also been recorded as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. Thus, there are consistent entries from 1921 to 2019 showing that the forefathers of the petitioner were recorded as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

The caste claim of the petitioner was referred for vigilance enquiry. During the vigilance enquiry, the Vigilance Officer collected entries in the name of one Leelabai Shankar. However, neither the Committee nor the Vigilance Officer has clarified as to how they came to the conclusion that the said Leelabai Shankar is a family member of the present petitioner, particularly when her surname is nowhere mentioned in any of the documents.

Learned AGP invited our attention to a family tree. On perusal of the said family tree, it appears that one Bhagwan Narain has furnished the family tree, wherein the petitioner/applicant is shown as Priyanka, whereas, in the present petition, the petitioner is Rucha. Thus, it is apparent that the Committee has considered the family tree of some other person while invalidating the caste claim of the present petitioner.

The approach of the Committee appears to be casual while considering the caste claim of the petitioner. The Committee has not even taken the pains to verify whether the said family tree tallies with the family tree produced by the petitioner. Relying upon the family tree of some other person, the Committee has invalidated the caste claim, thereby constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. Such an approach on the part of the Committee is not acceptable. We observe that the members of the Committee are required to carefully verify the documents and apply their mind while deciding the caste claims of the claimants.

The caste claim of the petitioner was also invalidated on the ground that the affinity test was not established by the petitioner. As regards this aspect, in the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the affinity test is not a litmus test and that documents belonging to the pre-Constitutional era have the highest probative value in the eyes of law.

Similarly, in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 2 Mh.L.J. 785], it is held that the Vigilance Cell, while conducting an affinity test, verifies the knowledge of the applicant about deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe. By its very nature, such an affinity test can never be conclusive. It is further held that the question of the conduct of the affinity test arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. While concluding, the Hon’ble Apex held that the affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim; and in short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a tribe claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

When the affinity test is not an integral part of the determination of the correctness of the claim, and when the petitioner has submitted a number of documents, out of which three documents are from the pre-Constitutional era and have high probative value, showing the tribe of the present petitioner as ‘Thakur’, the Committee’s decision to invalidate the claim by ignoring the same is a matter of serious concern. We are of the considered view that the tribe claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the Committee by giving appropriate weightage to the tribe validity certificates issued to the family members of the present petitioner.

The approach of the Committee has already been considered by us, wherein we have observed that, by considering the family tree of some other person, the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated without application of mind. The Committee has been constituted to assist persons seeking validation of their caste claims. The Committee is required to scrutinize the documents produced before it and verify the genuineness of the caste claim of the petitioner. However, the Committee appears to have treated the proceedings as adversarial litigation and decided the claim accordingly, which is not expected from the Committee.

In our considered opinion, the present petitioner has established her caste claim as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 - the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, invalidating the caste claim of the present petitioner belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, is quashed and set aside.

It is declared that the petitioner has duly established that she belongs to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, shall issue the caste validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.