Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
MAH. ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT SWARAKSHAN SAMITI - APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2502 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2772 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 25362537 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2533 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2532 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2534 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2518 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2517 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2525 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2520 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2527 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2538 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2541 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2535 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2546 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 39223923 OF 2019 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 25442545 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2512 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2543 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2542 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2529 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2540 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2539 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2503 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2514 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2519 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2524 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2510 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2506 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2509 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2508 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2507 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8603 OF 2010, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8605 OF 2010, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2504 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2505 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2511 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2530 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2522 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2516 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2521 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2531 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2523 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2528 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2513 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9335 OF 2013 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2515 OF 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2023
CASTE CERTIFICATE - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - AFFINITY TEST - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - APPLICABILITY OF PRECEDENTS - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES, DE-NOTIFIED TRIBES, (VIMUKTA JATIS), NOMADIC TRIBES, OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES AND SPECIAL BACKWARD CATEGORY (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF) CASTE CERTIFICATE ACT, 2000 - MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED TRIBES (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF) CERTIFICATE RULES, 2003 - MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED CASTES, DE-NOTIFIED TRIBES, (VIMUKTA JATIS), NOMADIC TRIBES, OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES AND SPECIAL BACKWARD CATEGORY (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF) CASTE CERTIFICATE RULES, 2012 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 142 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 226 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 341 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 342 - CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED TRIBES) ORDER, 1950 - KUMARI MADHURI PATIL AND ANOTHER V. ADDL.COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT & OTHERS, (1994) 6 SCC 241 - VIJAYKUMAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., (2010) 14 SCC 489 - ANAND V. COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY AND VERIFICATION OF TRIBE CLAIMS & ORS., (2012) 1 SCC 113 - DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SATARA & ANR. V. MANGESHNIVRUTTI KASHID, (2019) 10 SCC 166 - PALGHAT JILLA THANDAN SAMUDHAYA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI & ANR. V. STATE OF KERALA, (1994) 1 SCC 359 - STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. V. RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR & ANR., (2007) 1 SCC 80 - DAYARAM V. SUDHIR BATHAM & ORS., (2012) 1 SCC 333 - J. CHITRA V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL VIGILANCE COMMITTEE, TAMIL NADU & ORS., (2021) 9 SCC 811
Fact of the Case:
The present group of cases was referred to a larger Bench. The challenge in the lead case (Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022) is to a decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3) Mh.LJ (F.B) 995. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has interpreted the provisions of the 2000 Act as well as ST Rules. The impugned judgment discusses and lays down various procedural aspects to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the affinity test is an integral part of the determination of the correctness of the caste claim. In the order dated 24th March 2022, a Bench of this Court noted that there was a conflict of views expressed in two decisions of coordinate Benches of this Court. The first case is of Vijakumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 14 SCC 489and the second case is of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 113 . In paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Vijakumar (supra), this Court held that if a candidate fails the affinity test at any stage, a caste validity certificate cannot be granted to him. In the case of Anand (supra), it was held that the affinity test is not the only criteria for deciding a caste claim based on a caste certificate issued by a Competent Authority. It was held that it can be used to corroborate the documentary evidence. The question to be decided is whether paramount importance should be given to the affinity test while adjudicating upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste certificate issued by a Competent Authority. In other words, the question is whether the affinity test is a litmus test for deciding a caste claim.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Scrutiny Committee is not required to mechanically refer a case to the Vigilance Cell without recording satisfaction that the documents produced by the applicant were not sufficient to validate the caste claim. 2. The affinity test is not a litmus test and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.
Issues: 1. Whether paramount importance should be given to the affinity test while adjudicating upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste certificate issued by a Competent Authority? 2. Whether the affinity test is a litmus test for deciding a caste claim?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Scrutiny Committee is not required to mechanically refer a case to the Vigilance Cell without recording satisfaction that the documents produced by the applicant were not sufficient to validate the caste claim. 2. The affinity test is not a litmus test and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.
Final Decision: The appeals/SLPs shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for deciding the same in the light of the reference answered by the Court.
Key Points: - The affinity test is not a litmus test and is not essential in every case for determining caste claims. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Scrutiny Committee is not required to mechanically refer cases to the Vigilance Cell; referral happens only when the Committee is not satisfied with documentary evidence and must record brief reasons. (!) (!) (!) - Affinity test results must be considered along with other probative evidence; it is not conclusive and cannot be the sole basis for certification. (!) (!) - The 2000 Act establishes a two-tier system: Competent Authority issues a certificate subject to Scrutiny Committee verification, which can validate or cancel; certificate becomes conclusive only after a detailed enquiry. (!) (!) (!) - Pre-Constitution documents and ancestry evidence may have higher probative value; the affinity test is to corroborate, not replace, documentary evidence. (!) (!) (!) - Vigilance Cell proceedings are triggered only after the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with documents; a case-specific assessment is required with reasons. (!) (!) (!) - The decision clarifies that the surname Thakur may appear across caste groups and cannot alone determine tribal status; case-specific evidence is needed. (!) (!) - The Scrutiny Committee must provide reasons for granting or rejecting validity certificates and must follow Rule 12 and Rule 11 procedures for verification. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment directs that appeals be decided in light of these clarifications and reference answers. (!)
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
PRELUDE
1. Pursuant to Article 342 of the Constitution of India, a list of Scheduled Tribes was notified by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (for short ‘the ST Order’). By an Act of Parliament of 1976, the ST Order was amended. Part IX of the Third Schedule to the 1976 Act contains a list of notified Scheduled Tribes for the State of Maharashtra. At Entry no.44 in the Maharashtra List, the following castes have been notified as Scheduled Tribes:
“Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur, Ma Thakar”.
2. Various issues concerning the procedure to be followed for the determination of caste claims arose in a large number of cases. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241, this Court noted that it was necessary to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval. The need to lay down procedural guidelines was felt as several cases were noticed where candidates on the basis of false social status certificates obtained admissions to educational institutions which necessarily had the effect of depriving admissions to genuine candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. There was no law in force at that time laying down the procedure for the verification of caste status. Therefore, very exhaustive guidelines were laid down in paragraph 13 of the said decision. The relevant part of Paragraph 13 of the said decision reads thus:
“13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and subcastes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issua
The affinity test is not a litmus test for deciding a caste claim.
Scrutiny Committees must prioritize documentary evidence including pre-constitutional records and blood relatives' validity certificates over non-conclusive affinity test when verifying tribe claims,....
Point of Law : Once there is evidence of relatives having valid caste validity certificates of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee is bound to grant certificate to Petitioner’s claim and c....
The Scrutiny Committee cannot invalidate tribe validity certificates of blood relatives without evidence of fraud or jurisdictional issues; valid certificates must be accepted to ensure consistency a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Scrutiny Committee's procedure to comply with principles of natural justice and fair play, including providing the petition....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of pre-constitutional documents in establishing the genuineness of caste claims, the removal of area restrictions for Scheduled Tr....
Caste validation must prioritize historical documentary evidence over outdated affinity tests, reaffirming established rights of recognized tribes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
