Bombay HC | Caste Scrutiny Committee Cannot Order Reinquiry Without Reasons | Vigilance Cell Clearance of Pre-Independence Records Holds Primacy
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Division Bench of Justice Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Pravin S. Patil held that the impugned order invalidating the caste claim of two petitioners was unsustainable in law. The court quashed the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which had rejected the petitioners’ caste claim, and directed that caste validity certificates be issued. The court declared that the petitioners have proved their belonging to ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’ as recognized under Entry No.18 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. Further, the court ordered that the petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from such caste validity certificates and mandated the issuance within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.
The petitions arose from a common order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. The petitioners, a father and daughter, had approached the High Court challenging the rejection of their caste claims. The father, aged about 50 years and employed as a Multipurpose Worker in the Health Department, had been appointed from the Scheduled Tribe category in 1992. His proposal was forwarded to the scrutiny committee in December 2017. The daughter, a 22-year-old student pursuing her final year of B.Sc., had her proposal forwarded to the scrutiny committee in June 2016.
The petitioners asserted that they belong to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and had obtained caste certificates from the competent authority. They candidly stated in their applications that no member of their family possessed caste validity prior to their claims, and that the father was the first person in the family to claim caste validity as ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe.’ They submitted a genealogical tree tracing their lineage to Fakiraya, the grandfather of the father and great-grandfather of the daughter.
In support of their claims, the petitioners relied on documentary evidence, particularly a pre-independence era record. The key evidence was a Kotwal book entry dated 13 June 1932, which recorded the caste of Fakiraya as ‘Mana.’ The petitioners argued that this document, being the oldest entry available, established their caste status. They also pointed out that the vigilance cell initially verified this entry and prepared a positive report in May 2019, confirming the authenticity of the entry and corroborating the genealogical tree.
Despite this, the scrutiny committee directed a re-enquiry by the vigilance cell. In the re-enquiry report submitted in February 2020, the vigilance cell questioned the reliability of the 1932 entry, citing its appearance in another case, and discarded it. Instead, the committee relied on later entries in the petitioners’ family records from the years 1937, 1947, 1952, 1954, and 1965, which recorded caste as ‘Mani’ or ‘Mani-Kunbi.’ Based on these records, the committee rejected the petitioners’ caste claims.
The committee also cited the petitioners’ alleged failure in the affinity test, which examines anthropological and ethnological traits, such as deity, rituals, customs, marriage practices, and burial methods. It concluded that the petitioners had not proved their caste through the affinity test and dismissed their claims accordingly.
The petitioners contended before the High Court that the committee erred in discarding pre-independence documentary evidence, which has higher probative value than post-independence records, and in mechanically relying on the affinity test as a determinative factor. They argued that the re-enquiry lacked justification, as no reasons were recorded for disregarding the positive vigilance report of 2019.
The respondent-committee, through its affidavit, maintained that the rejection was justified. It argued that the subsequent entries of ‘Mani’ and ‘Mani-Kunbi’ were decisive and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the traits of the Mana community in the affinity test.
The court heard arguments from both sides and examined the documentary record, the vigilance cell reports, and the relevant statutory provisions, particularly the Scheduled Tribe (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2003, along with judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (2011), Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner (1994), and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra (2023). The bench reserved judgment on 28 July 2025 and pronounced it on 11 August 2025.
The Division Bench recorded several findings after analysing the law and facts. It stated: “While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents.” The court referred to the 1932 Kotwal book entry in the name of Fakiraya and observed: “According to us, there is no ambiguity and it is clearly mentioned the caste as ‘Mana’. As such, discarding this important document only because Vigilance Cell in its report stated that same is found in one Ku. Janvi Gharat case, without giving any details as to how same is relevant in the matter, we find grave error committed by respondent-committee.”
On the vigilance proceedings, the bench stated: “The vigilance cell on 21.05.2019 submitted positive report, however, same was not relied upon by the committee and directed to consider re-enquiry into the matter. But the perusal of entire record nowhere demonstrate that the reasons are recorded while directing re-enquiry into the matter. Hence, prima facie, it is clear that the respondent-committee violated Rule 12 (2) of the Rules-2003.”
The court examined the petitioners’ performance in the affinity test and noted: “The bare perusal of the statement dated 11.04.2018 clearly shows that it was in question/answer form conducted by the Police Inspector. It is also seen that the petitioner has answered every question and submitted all the details, customs and traditions followed by the petitioner and their family. It is not happened, while answering the queries, he stated that he is not aware about the traits and culture of caste ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. As such, there was no reason to disbelieve the affinity test conducted by vigilance cell.”
On the role of affinity tests, the bench referred to Supreme Court judgements and stated: “The affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.” The judges found that the committee treated the affinity test as a litmus test, contrary to settled law: “As such, law laid down regarding consideration of affinity test is not at all considered in the matter.”
Summarizing the committee’s approach, the court recorded: “In the present matter, we found that the entire exercise done by the respondent-committee is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Firstly, there is no consideration to pre-independence era document that is of dated 13.06.1932 in the name of grandfather/great grandfather of petitioners. Secondly, once vigilance cell admitted the validity of document in its first vigilance report, there was no reason recorded as to why the matter was again referred to vigilance cell. Thirdly, on affinity, the enquiry was made by the officer by asking question in question-answer form, same were replied by petitioners. As such, in absence of any remark of concerned officer that petitioners failed to prove the custom, rituals, the committee ought to have consider the same as a corroborative evidence rather than accepting it as a litmus test.”
The bench concluded that the impugned order of the scrutiny committee was contrary to settled legal principles and suffered from manifest errors.
The Division Bench issued the following directives: “The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Respondent-The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside.” The court further declared: “It is hereby declared that the petitioners have proved that they belonging to ‘Mana Scheduled Tribe’, which is Entry No.18 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950.”
The court ordered: “The Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to issue the Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” It added: “It is further made clear that petitioners are entitled for all consequential benefits flowing from the caste validity certificates in their respective service career.” Finally, the bench held: “Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate with Ms. Himani Kavi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.P. Pendke, Assistant Government Pleader.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar s/o Shankarao Dongare & Ku. Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare v. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:7859-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No.4237 of 2022 with Writ Petition No.4240 of 2022
Bench: Justice Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Justice Pravin S. Patil
