“Courts Cannot Alter Constitutionally Notified Tribes”: Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of ST Certificate After Petitioners Fail Affinity Test
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of Scheduled Tribe caste certificates issued to the petitioners. The Court affirmed the validity of the Sub-Divisional Officer's decision to cancel the certificates and upheld the appellate authority’s affirmation of the same.
The core judicial decision, delivered on 8th April 2025, stated that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate their inclusion within the constitutionally recognized Scheduled Tribe list. The Court stated that the authorities had followed due process in concluding that the certificates were obtained through misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. No relief was granted to the petitioners.
The petitioners, full-blooded sisters, filed the writ petition against the State of West Bengal and others, challenging the cancellation of their Scheduled Tribe certificates. The certificates were revoked by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Hooghly, and the cancellation was affirmed by the appellate authority, the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Hooghly.
In support of their caste status, the petitioners relied upon a deed of sale executed on 1st December 1947 in which their paternal grandfather was referred to as belonging to the caste "Goud" (গৌড) in Bengali. They contended that this pre-independence document carried high evidentiary value and should not have been disregarded. Further, the petitioners submitted that their family had been permanent residents of the area for over eighty years and that they practiced the customs of the Gond tribe.
The petitioners also cited the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, arguing that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked the authority to cancel a validly issued caste certificate. According to them, only the State Scrutiny Committee was competent to make such a decision under Section 9 of the Act.
It was contended that the cancellation was made without following the principle of natural justice, and that the appellate authority had not demonstrated that the petitioners had obtained the certificates through false representation, suppression of facts, or forgery.
The petitioners placed reliance on several judgments including:
- Krishnapada Sardar & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Judgment dated 10th January 2020), where the Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacks power to cancel caste certificates.
- Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development [AIR 1995 SC 94], in which the Supreme Court laid down procedures for issuing and cancelling caste certificates.
The State respondents submitted an affidavit in opposition, affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, asserting that field inquiries had been conducted and that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing. The report relied upon a 1947 registered deed where the caste of the petitioners' grandfather was recorded in Bengali as "Goud," which the officer found not synonymous with "Gond."
It was submitted that the petitioners did not practice any custom or ritual associated with the Gond tribe. According to the State, the term "Goud" is not interchangeable with "Gond" as per the Scheduled Tribe entries. Moreover, the petitioners failed the affinity test, and their family’s origin was traced to Bihar.
The State referred to complaints received from Bharat Jakat Majhi Pargana Mahal and the West Bengal Scheduled Tribes Welfare Association alleging false grant of Scheduled Tribe certificates. It was revealed during the inquiry that the petitioners’ father admitted to having no knowledge of Gond customs and that their family was not Adivasi.
The State relied on the decision in Jai Narayan Shah & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2005 SCC Online Pat 674], where it was held that the Hindi vernacular "Gaud" could not be equated with "Gond."
Additionally, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgement in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 4], which held that it is not permissible for any court or authority to expand or interpret the Scheduled Tribes list beyond what is expressly included in the Presidential Notification under Article 342.
Justice Amrita Sinha recorded that "on English translation the same can be spelt as Gour and certainly not as Gond." The Court noted that an enquiry had been conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who found that the petitioners did not practice any custom or ritual followed by the Gond tribe.
"Due opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners," it was recorded. The Court referred to the opinion of a coordinate Bench in Krishnapada Sardar (supra) and noted that the report from the Cultural Research Institute, which is part of the State Scrutiny Committee, cannot be dismissed lightly.
The Court stated, "the State Scrutiny Committee consists of the Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare Department as Chairperson, the Commissioner, Directorate of Backward Classes Welfare Department as Convener, and the Director, Cultural Research Institute Backward Classes as Expert Member."
It was further observed, "Section 9 of the 1994 Act recognizes the power of the State Scrutiny Committee to cancel or revoke the caste certificate." The appellate authority had relied on this framework to reject the petitioners’ prayer.
Justice Sinha noted, "the authority applied the required checks and safeguards and ensured that the petitioners were granted due opportunity of hearing." Referring again to Milind (supra), the Court recorded that "the caste/tribe of the petitioners is not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. It will not be proper for the Court to extend the benefit of reservation to them."
The Court dismissed the writ petition and no costs were awarded. .
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Debjyoti Basu, Advocate, Chandan Kr. Lal, Advocate, Parashar Baidya, Advocate
For the State: Debajyoti Datta, Senior Advocate, Avishek Prasad, Advocate
Case Title: Priyanka Shaw & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 25645 of 2024
Bench: Justice Amrita Sinha
[Read/Download order]
