Snehal vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally with their consent.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, whereby her claim of belonging to "Raj" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to her by the Competent Authority has been cancelled.

The petitioner claims to belong to "Raj" Scheduled Tribe, which finds place at Entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. While pursuing her education, her tribe claim was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for verification on 19.09.2022. In support of her claim, the petitioner relied upon various documentary records, including documents of the pre-independence period, showing the tribe of her forefathers as “Raj”. The record placed before the Scrutiny Committee included old documents dating back to the year 1915 and onwards. Upon receipt of the proposal, the Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry.

She was issued show cause notice dated 26.02.2024 along with vigilance cell report dated 20.01.2024. Thereafter, the Respondent Committee, relying upon the vigilance enquiry and certain entries described as adverse, rejected the claim by order dated 05.06.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Mr. T. U. Tathod, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, particularly the old documents of the pre-constitutional period showing her forefathers as “Raj” Scheduled Tribe. The documents relied upon include records of the years 1915, 1940, 1941, 1947, etc which have substantial probative value. Below are the pre constitutional documents depicting the tribe of the petitioner’s relatives as ‘Raj’ –

It is submitted that the petitioner's blood relatives, namely Gaurav Chandrashekhar Mungalkar, Nishant Chandrashekhar Mungalkar and Vidhya Manohar Pinjarkar, have already been declared to belong to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5040 of 2021, 2402 of 2022 and 1588 of 2022 respectively. The Validity Certificates have thereafter been issued to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is further covered by the common judgment dated 10.12.2025 in Writ Petition No.4382 of 2025 and connected matters, wherein this Court considered the same family history, old documentary evidence and the adverse entries relied upon by the Committee.

It is submitted that the alleged adverse entries of “Hindu”, “Gawandi” and “Beldar” do not dislodge the petitioner's claim. “Hindu” denotes religion and not caste, while the entries of “Gawandi” and “Beldar” relied upon by the Committee do not pertain to the petitioner's paternal blood relatives.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Committee erred in relying upon alleged socio-cultural differences and the so-called affinity test to reject the claim, despite the consistent documentary evidence. The affinity test, it is submitted, can only corroborate documentary evidence and cannot be the sole basis for rejection.

Relying upon Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a blood relative cannot ordinarily be denied the same tribe status when the claim of another blood relative has already been scrutinized and accepted. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be declared to belong to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe.

Per contra, Ms. S. S. Dhote, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the burden of proving the genuineness of the tribe claim lies upon the petitioner under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The petitioner was required to establish her claim through reliable documentary and other supporting evidence.

It is submitted that the oldest document relied upon by the petitioner, namely the gift-deed dated 22.06.1915, could not be verified from the concerned Sub-Registrar's office despite repeated efforts by the Vigilance Cell. Its authenticity was, therefore, not established and the Committee rightly discarded it. The sale-deed dated 15.03.1940 and birth extract dated 14.02.1947 were also rightly disbelieved for the reasons recorded in the impugned order.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Vigilance Cell found several adverse entries, including “Marathi”, “Hindu”, “Rajgond”, “Gawandi” and “Beldar”. It is submitted that several such entries are from the pre-constitutional period and, therefore, have significant probative value.

It is further submitted that the vigilance enquiry also revealed Caste Certificates of certain relatives showing them as belonging to Gawandi and Beldar categories, besides statements regarding marriages within those communities. According to the respondent, these circumstances cast serious doubt on the petitioner's claim.

As regards the earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the adverse material now available was not before this Court in those proceedings. Hence, according to the respondent, the said judgments cannot automatically govern the petitioner's case.

It is lastly submitted that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and, upon considering the documentary evidence, Vigilance Report and socio-cultural material, the Committee rightly concluded that she had failed to establish her affinity with “Raj” Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference.

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The principal question that falls for consideration is whether the respondent - Committee was justified in invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe despite the old documentary evidence relied upon by her and the earlier judgments of this Court declaring her blood relatives to belong to the same Scheduled Tribe.

Before considering the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce the genealogy of the petitioner, particularly since the petitioner seeks to rely upon the Validity Certificates granted to several of her blood relatives from the same family lineage. The genealogy, as placed on record, is reproduced hereinbelow:

The petitioner has placed on record documents pertaining to her forefathers dating back to the pre-constitutional period namely the gift-deed dated 22.06.1915 of the great-great-grandfather of the petitioner, namely Sonba s/o Devji Mungalkar. The petitioner has also relied upon the sale-deed dated 15.03.1940 relating to Shankarrao Sonba, School Extract of Sheshrao Jhabulal Mungalkar dated 26.06.1941 and the birth extract dated 14.02.1947, wherein the caste/tribe of the concerned ancestors is shown as “Raj”. Thus, the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner is not confined to a recent period, but contains pre-constitutional and subsequent entries in support of her claim.

The respondent - Committee, however, discarded the aforesaid gift-deed dated 22.06.1915 principally on the ground that its genuineness could not be verified from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, as no response was received to the communications addressed by the Vigilance Cell. In our view, mere non-availability of the record with the concerned office or failure to receive a response to the communications seeking verification, by itself, cannot render the document unreliable, particularly when the document forms part of the old family record and is supported by subsequent documentary entries. The Committee was required to consider the evidentiary value of the document in the context of the entire documentary record and could not discard the oldest document solely on account of non-verification in the manner stated in the impugned order.

What is more significant is that the respondent - Committee has adopted the same approach in respect of several other pre-constitutional documents dated 17.04.1945, 19.06.1941 and 01.04.1947, wherein the caste of the concerned ancestors is recorded as “Raj”. These documents have also been discarded merely because they could not be verified during the vigilance enquiry. In our view, the inability of the Vigilance Cell to independently verify such old documents cannot be equated with a finding that the documents are false or fabricated. The respondent - Committee was required to assess their evidentiary value in the context of the entire documentary record, particularly when the entries therein consistently record the caste as “Raj”. The oldest documents could not have been discarded merely on the ground of non-verification.

Significantly, the very same gift-deed dated 22.06.1915 was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.5040 of 2021 filed by Gaurav Chandrashekhar Mungalkar, who is a blood relative of the present petitioner. This Court, after considering the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner therein, declared him to belong to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe and directed issuance of the Validity Certificate of petitioner’s cousin brother, namely Gaurav Chandrashekar Mungalkar. The said judgment has attained finality. Thus, the respondent - Committee could not have discarded the very same foundational document in the case of the present petitioner without demonstrating any distinguishing material warranting a different conclusion.

The aforesaid judgment was followed in the case of another blood relative of the petitioner, namely Nishant Chandrashekhar Mungalkar, in Writ Petition No.2402 of 2022. By judgment dated 21.06.2022, this Court allowed the petition and declared Nishant to belong to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's cousin aunt, Vidhya Manohar Pinjarkar, was also granted the same status by this Court in Writ Petition No.1588 of 2022 by the judgment dated 07.12.2022. The concerned Scrutiny Committee thereafter issued Validity Certificates in their favour.

The consistent view taken by this Court in the aforesaid proceedings assumes significance in the present case. The petitioner and the aforesaid validity holders are admittedly blood relatives and the claims arise from the same family lineage. The respondent - committee was, therefore, required to consider the earlier adjudication and examine whether any distinguishing material existed in the petitioner's case warranting a different conclusion. The principle laid down in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others (supra), proceeds on the same footing, namely, that the caste or tribe status of a blood relative, once duly scrutinized and accepted, cannot ordinarily be disregarded while considering the claim of another blood relative arising from the same family lineage. This is particularly so where the claim of the subsequent claimant rests upon the same ancestral documents and there is no material demonstrating that the earlier finding was obtained on the basis of erroneous, fabricated or materially different evidence. In the present case, as we shall presently see, the respondent - Committee has failed to demonstrate any such distinguishing circumstance warranting a departure from the consistent findings already recorded in favour of the petitioner's blood relatives.

More importantly, the issue came to be considered subsequently by this Court in Writ Petition No.4382 of 2025 and connected matters, wherein the petitioners were descendants of the same ancestor, Sonba, and their claims had been invalidated by the very same respondent - Committee on substantially similar grounds. This Court, by common judgment dated 10.12.2025, granted similar relief to other paternal blood relatives of the petitioner and thereby issued Validity Certificate in their favour.

We may now consider the adverse entries relied upon by the respondent - Committee. The Vigilance Cell has referred to entries such as “Marathi”, “Hindu”, “Rajgond”, “Gawandi” and “Beldar”. As regards the entry “Hindu”, the same denotes religion and cannot, by itself, be treated as a caste entry contrary to the petitioner's claim. Likewise, “Rajgond” cannot be treated as an entry destructive of the claim when Rajgond itself finds place as a Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. This aspect has already been considered by this Court in the common judgment dated 10.12.2025.

As regards the entries of “Gawandi” and “Beldar”, the petitioner has specifically contended that the persons in whose records such entries occur are not her paternal blood relatives and the names of the same are not reflected in her family tree. The respondent -Committee, in its reply, has relied upon the Caste Certificates and statements of certain relatives and persons connected to the family. However, the material relied upon by the respondent - Committee cannot be considered in isolation or without first establishing the precise relationship of such persons with the petitioner. In the absence of such linkage, the said entries cannot be permitted to outweigh the consistent documentary evidence relating to the petitioner's direct paternal lineage.

The respondent - Committee has also relied upon the alleged absence of socio-cultural affinity of the petitioner with “Raj” Scheduled Tribe. Such approach, in our view, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113, wherein it has been held that while the affinity test is relevant for examining the ethnological connection of a claimant with the Scheduled Tribe, it has to be applied with caution and cannot be treated as a “litmus test” for establishing the tribe claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that, in view of migration, modernisation and contact with other communities, the present traits of a claimant may not necessarily correspond with the traditional traits of the tribe and, therefore, the affinity test may be used only to corroborate the documentary evidence and cannot be the sole criterion for rejection of the claim. In the present case, the Committee has failed to demonstrate why the old documentary evidence commencing from the year 1915, coupled with the consistent entries thereafter and the validity granted to the petitioner's blood relatives, should be discarded merely on the basis of the perceived absence of socio-cultural affinity.

We also find substance in the contention of the petitioner that the Committee's observation that the forefathers of the petitioner were educated and had thereby entered the “mainstream” of society cannot furnish a valid basis for rejecting the tribe claim. Once a community is included in the Presidential Order as a Scheduled Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee cannot embark upon an enquiry based upon its own assessment of the social or educational advancement of an individual or his ancestors. The status has to be determined on the basis of the constitutional entry and the evidence relating to the claimant's connection with the notified tribe.

On an overall consideration of the material, we find that the respondent - Committee has given undue weightage to isolated entries while failing to properly appreciate the oldest documentary evidence, the subsequent consistent entries and, most importantly, the judgments of this Court concerning the petitioner's blood relatives. The same pre-constitutional documents which was considered in the earlier proceedings has again been discarded without any legally sustainable distinction. The subsequent common judgment dated 10.12.2025 has also considered substantially the same documentary material and the alleged contra-entries and has rejected the very approach adopted by the Committee. In these circumstances, the findings recorded in the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner towards “Raj” Scheduled Tribe is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner has proved that she belongs to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe, which is included at Entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, shall accordingly issue a Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying her as belonging to “Raj” Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.