Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 228097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. Jawalkar, Raj D. Wakode, JJ
Anushka Rajendra Wankhade – Appellant
Versus
Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Marathe
For the Respondents: Kavita Bhondge

Pre-independence documents possess superior probative value for substantiating tribal status. The burden of proof follows a standard of preponderance of probabilities, and the affinity test serves only as a corroborative measure, not a decisive litmus test capable of overriding consistent historical documentary evidence.

Headnote:(A) 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 - Section 8 - Burden of proof - Clan and tribe claim validation - Requirement to establish claim on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 14, 31)

(B) Evidence - Probative value of documents - Pre-independence era documents - Greater reliance must be placed on pre-independence records as they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the status of a tribe - Discarding such evidence based on assumptions or allegations of interpolation without substantial proof constitutes error. (Paras 29, 30)

(C) Affinity test - A cautious approach is required as the test serves only to corroborate documentary evidence and should not be used as the sole litmus test for determining tribal status in cases where historical documentary evidence is otherwise consistent. (Paras 29, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the orders of the scrutiny committee which invalidated their status as belonging to a specific tribal group. Despite submitting multiple documents dating from the pre-independence era, including sale deeds, rent agreements, and birth records spanning from 1918 to 1945, the committee rejected the claims based on a secondary inquiry and internal observations regarding the physical condition of the records.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the scrutiny committee exhibited a biased approach by discarding valid, historically registered documents that consistently recorded the tribe name over several decades. The committee failed to provide sound reasoning for ignoring the earlier, favorable findings in the initial inquiry, instead relying on speculative observations about the documents' condition without conclusive evidence of tampering.

Issues: Whether the scrutiny committee erred in discarding established pre-independence documents and whether the affinity test and second vigilance report findings could legally supersede consistent historical documentation.

Ratio Decidendi: Historical pre-independence records carry superior evidentiary value in caste verification proceedings. The standard for proof is a preponderance of probabilities, and where early ancestral records consistently substantiate a tribe claim, such evidence cannot be arbitrarily dismissed based on procedural skepticism or inconsistent administrative reports. The affinity test is merely a secondary tool for corroboration and cannot override primary documentary evidence.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed and set aside; committee directed to issue validity certificates.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of petitions involving blood relatives for common judgment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of caste claim invalidation and procedural history. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17)
3. burden of proof and reliance on documentary evidence for tribe claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. evaluation of pre-independence revenue and school records for tribe verification. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. precedents on the high probative value of pre-independence caste documents. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. invalidation of committee orders for being perverse and disregarding historical evidence. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

2. As both the Petitioners are blood relatives, both the Petitions are taken up to decide together by a common judgment.

3. Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.721/2025 are as under :

4. The Petitioner – Ku. Anushka Rajendra Wankhade, by this petition is challenging the order dated 09/12/2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (for short the “Scrutiny Committee”), thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Constitutional (S.T.) Order 1950.

5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that on 20/01/2024, the Petitioner submitted an application along with the 16 documents supporting her claim to the “Thakur” Schedule Tribe, before the Scrutiny Committee, through the Principal, Amarsingh Kanisht Mahavidylaya, Pathrot for verification, out of which almost 9 documents are from pre-independence showing her ancestors as “Thakur”. Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee called a report from Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted it’s report on 28/10/2024. The Vigilance Cell has given its remark that the land sale purchase transactions done by the grand father of the Petitioner as they belong to Scheduled Tribe was not disclosed. It is alleged that the Vigilance Cell has not conducted any inquiry and submitted it’s report on the basis of inquiry conducted earlier while verifying her father’s Tribe Claim and Validity. The Petitioner submitted her reply to the said Report on 26/11/2024, in which she has contended that the Vigilance Cell has not doubted the pre-independence documents but only submitted that it was unable to verify them.

6. Among the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of her caste claim, following are the documents of pre-independence period :

Sr. No.	Description of Document	Caste	Date
1	Sale Deed executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur (Great-grandfather of Petitioner)	Thakur	02.03.1918
2	Agreement of Sale by Purnaji Raoji Thakur	Thakur	08.07.1921
3	Sale Deed executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur	Thakur	26.01.1937
4	Lease Deed executed by Purnaji Raoji Thakur	Thakur	27.07.1939
5	Extract of Birth Register of Purnaji Raoji Thakur gave birth a female child Kamla Purnaji Thakur	Thakur	27.08.1934
6	School Extract of Pandurang Purnaji	Thakur	20.04.1937
7	Lease Deed of Purnaji Raoji Thakur	Thakur	20.05.1945

7. The Petitioner has also contended that the Respondent Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim on the basis of area restriction mentioning that the Petitioner failed to show that her ancestors are migrant from five districts i.e., Pune, Ahmednagar, Thane, Nashik and Colaba before cancellation of area restriction.

8. Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.5815/2024 are as under :

9. By this Petition, the Petitioner – Rajendra Pandurangji Wankhade is challenging the order dated 06/09/2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to the “Thakur” Sche

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 228097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYM. S. Jawalkar, Raj D. Wakode, JJAnushka Rajendra Wankhade – AppellantVersusSchedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2024

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. Jawalkar, Raj D. Wakode, JJ
Anushka Rajendra Wankhade – Appellant
Versus
Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2024