Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AS:2810-DB
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 5149 of 2007
Mrunalini Sitaram Thakur … Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
3. Balak Mandir Sanstha,
Kalyan. … Respondents
Mr. R.K.Mendadkar a/w. Priyanka Shaw, Jayshree Mendadkar,
Siddhant Sawai, Jagdish Kawale, Prajakta Pashtre Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. P.P.Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for the
Respondents-State.
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
th
DATE : 13 January 2026.
Oral Judgment (Per M.S. Karnik, J) :
Digitally
signed by
LATA
SUNIL
PANJWANI
Date:
2026.01.21
12:12:16
+0530
LATA
SUNIL
PANJWANI
We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and Mr. Kakade, the learned AGP appearing for
the Respondents-State.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 2
2. Brief background of the matter is as follows:
The rejection of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a
Writ Petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 12th
December 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the
Appeal, set aside the order passed by this Court, and remanded the
matter for fresh consideration. The relevant paragraphs from the
order dated 12th December 2025 are reproduced hereinbelow for
ready reference.
“1. The applications for substitution are allowed after
condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any,
subject to all just exceptions. Applications for
intervention/impleadment are also allowed, subject to all
just exceptions.
2. The issue that falls for consideration in these cases is
whether the appellants or other similarly placed persons,
who claim themselves belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled
Tribe, are entitled to claim the benefits as would enure to
the said Scheduled Tribe. It may be noticed that the Nagpur
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has, vide
the impugned judgment, upheld the cancellation of caste
certificates of a large number of persons because they did
not fulfil the ‘affinity test’ for being considered as part of
the Scheduled Tribe.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 3
3. It is not in dispute that a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, vide judgment dated 24.03.2023 (passed in the
instant proceedings). reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415, has
held as follows:
“ 36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an
enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the
applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While
referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny
Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the
conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to
the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the
conduct of affinity test will arise.
(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test
cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is
conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along
with all other material on record having probative value
will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny
Committee for deciding will the caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste
claim and is not an essential part in the process of the
determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in
every case.”
4. It may be seen from the above that this Court has
categorically ruled that only when the Scrutiny Committee
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 4
after holding an inquiry is not satisfied with the material
produced by applicant/claimant (like the appellants), the
case can be referred to the Vigilance Cell. For doing so, the
Scrutiny Committee is obligated to record brief reasons in
support of the conclusion that it was not satisfied with the
material produced by the applicant. The occasion for
holding a further fact-finding inquiry by the Vigilance Cell,
would arise only when preliminary test prescribed for the
Screening Committee has been met with.
5. In light of the cited decision, we are satisfied that all
these cases require a fresh consideration at the hands of the
High Court, especially to determine whether the procedure
adopted by the Scrutiny Committee, the consequential
further inquiry, if any, by the Vigilance Cell, and the final
conclusion arrived by the Scrutiny Committee are in
consonance with the parameters laid down by this Court.
These appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed, the
judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside, and
the cases are remanded to the High Court. The Writ
Petitions filed by the appellants/claimants shall stand
revived for being heard and decided afresh.
6. It is clarified that the questions of law, which are not
answered by the above-cited judgment, as well as other
subsequent decisions of this Court, are kept open, and the
parties will be at liberty to raise all their contentions before
the High Court. It also goes without saying that in this
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 5
renewed consideration, the parties may rely upon
additional documents, if any, and the High Court may
accord them an opportunity for the same.”
3. The impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated
th
16 April 2010 invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner as
belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe is under challenge.
4. The Petitioner has relied upon the validity certificate of her
blood brothers Milind Sitaram Thakur and Hitendra Sitaram Thakur
who have been granted certificate of validity by the Scrutiny
st st
Committee on 31 October 2003 and 21 July 2005 respectively.
Though the certificates were produced before the Scrutiny
Committee, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of
the Petitioner observing that even Milind and Hitendra were issued
certificate of validity despite having failed to prove the affinity test.
5. The caste claim of the Petitioner is invalidated principally on
the ground that the Petitioner has failed to prove the affinity test.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi
1
Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v/s. State of Maharashtra has held that
affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an
essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a
caste or tribe claim in every case.
6. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Respondent
1 (2023) 16 SCC 415
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 6
No.2- Committee issued certificate of validity to Bhuvaneshwari
Hitendra Thakur, the daughter of the blood brother of the Petitioner,
th
Hitendra Thakur, dated 28 August 2023. There does not appear to
be much dispute on this fact. This Court in the case of Apoorva d/o
Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
2
No.1 and others , in Paragraph No.4 held thus:
“4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view
that the petitioner’s caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar
Bhat-Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the
Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of
her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed
by the Committee, even apart from the Government
Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines
provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based
on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise.
If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted,
and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a
particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money
should be spent in the committee testing the same evidence
and making the same conclusion unless of course the
Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the
certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud.”
7. In Maharashtra Adiwasi (supra), the following three essential
prerequisites for granting caste validity certificates were outlined by
Their Lordships at the paragraph 24 of the judgment quoted above:
2 2010 (6) Mh.L.J.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::
909 wp 5149.07.doc
LSP 7
(i) The applicant must establish a clear and specific
relationship with the person in whose favour the validity
certificate has been issued;
(ii) The Scrutiny Committee must verify whether the
validity certificate was granted to the applicant’s blood
relative after due enquiry and in accordance with
prescribed procedure; and
(iii) The Scrutiny Committee must ascertain the
genuineness of the validity certificate relied upon.
8. The Petitioner’s close blood relatives from the paternal side
having been issued a certificate of validity and as seen from the
record, the Petitioner’s niece Bhuvaneshwari has also been issued the
th
certificate of validity as recently as on 28 August 2023, the Petition
must succeed. There is nothing on record to indicate that certificate
of validity was issued to Bhuvaneshwari without holding due enquiry
and that Bhuvaneshwari is not a blood relative of the Petitioner.
9. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The
Respondent No.2 – Committee is directed to issue the caste validity
certificate to the petitioner as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled
Tribe within a period of six weeks from the date of communication
of this order.
10. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(S.M.MODAK,J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2026 21:45:47 :::