Yogesh Madhav Makalwad vs. The State Of Maharashtra

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 964

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27410 of 2024)


YOGESH MADHAV MAKALWAD …APPELLANT


VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS
& ORS.


J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final
rd
order dated 23 July, 2024 passed by the learned Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench
1
at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 8702 of 2019. Vide the
impugned judgment and final order, the High Court
th
dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.08.12
17:15:25 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 1 of 14


June, 2019 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
2
Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
confiscating and invalidating the Caste Certificate of the
appellant and his father for the Scheduled Tribe – Koli
Mahadev.
3. The facts, in brief , leading to the filing of the present
appeal are as under:
3.1. Way back in the year 1943, the appellant’s
grandfather, namely, Jalba Malba Makalwad, was
admitted in Zilla Parishad Primary School, Narangal,
Degloor Taluka, Nanded District wherein his caste was
mentioned as Koli Mahadev.
3.2. Thereafter, in the years 1975 and 1979, appellant’s
uncle, namely, Vyankat Jalba Makalwad and appellant’s
father, namely, Madhav Jalba Makalwad, were admitted in
Zilla Parishad Primary School, Kabirwadi, Degloor Taluka,
Nanded District. In the admission register, their caste was
mentioned as Koli Mahadev.

2
Hereinafter referred to as “the Scrutiny Committee”
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 2 of 14


3.3. In the year 2005, the appellant was admitted in the
Janta Vidya Mandir Primary School, Murud Taluka, Latur
District wherein his caste was also mentioned as Koli
Mahadev.
st
3.4. On 21 May 2010, the State of Maharashtra issued a
circular being Government Circular No.
A.Ja.U.2009/Pra.No.61/Ka-1413 thereby announcing the
implementation of certain schemes in villages/colonies
having a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population
exceeding 40%. On the basis of the 2001 census,
appellant’s village is included in the list of eligible villages
under the said circular.
th
3.5. It appears that as on 18 June, 2010, the appellant’s
school leaving register also mentions him belonging to the
caste Koli Mahadev.
3.6. In 2019, the appellant appeared for the National
Eligibility- cum -Entrance Test (NEET) UG examination,
wherein he scored 334 marks out of 720 marks thereby,
becoming eligible for admission in a Medical College on the
strength of his Caste Certificate. However, the Caste
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 3 of 14


Certificate of the appellant had not been validated till then.
The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition being W.P. No.
8702 of 2019 before the High Court seeking direction for
scrutinizing his Caste Certificate at the earliest so that he
can be admitted in a Medical College.
3.7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Scrutiny
th
Committee vide order dated 24 June, 2019 invalidated
the claim of the appellant and his father disbelieving
various documents placed on record such as the School
Admission and Leaving Extract of the appellant’s
grandfather from the year 1943, the school records of the
appellant’s father as well as the school records of
appellant’s uncle. Resultantly, the Scheduled Tribe
Certificates of the appellant and his father were cancelled
and impounded by the Scrutiny Committee.
3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant amended his writ
th
petition additionally challenging the order dated 24 June,
2019 passed by the Scrutiny Committee.
3.9. Vide impugned judgment and final order, the learned
Division Bench of the High Court the petition
dismissed
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 4 of 14


stating that the school records of the relatives of the
appellant are neither reliable nor competitive to the claim
of the appellant and therefore, upheld the order dated
th
24 June, 2019 passed by the Scrutiny Committee
confiscating and invalidating the caste claim of the
appellant.
3.10. Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition
was filed by the appellant in which notice was issued vide
th
order dated 27 January 2025.
SUBMISSIONS

4. We have heard Shri Uday Bhaskar Dube, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well
as Shri Shrirang B. Varma and Shri Varad Kilor, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
5. Shri Uday Bhaskar Dube, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the
Scrutiny Committee as well as the High Court has grossly
erred in dismissing the claim of the appellant. It is
submitted that the School Admission and Leaving Extract
of the appellant’s grandfather, which was recorded on
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 5 of 14


th
10 October, 1943 clearly indicates the caste as Koli
Mahadev. It is submitted that the same being a
pre-Independence document will have a greater probative
value and the Scrutiny Committee as well as the High
Court ought to have taken the same into consideration and
held the appellant’s caste claim of belonging to Koli
Mahadev Tribe valid.
6. Per contra , Shri Shrirang B. Varma and Shri Varad
Kilor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
have vehemently opposed the appeal. They submitted that
the so-called document of 1943 is not free from doubt as
the opinion on handwriting with regard to interpolation is
inconclusive. It is further submitted that the appellant has
failed the affinity test. The appellant has not been in a
position to depose before the Scrutiny Committee with
regard to the customs and traditions followed by the Koli
Mahadev Tribe, as such, on this ground also the claim has
been rightly invalidated.


CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 6 of 14


ANALYSIS
7. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Anand v. Committee
for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims and
3
Others . It would be relevant to refer paragraph 22 of the
said judgment which reads thus:
“ 22. It is manifest from the aforeextracted
paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim
has to be considered not only on a thorough
examination of the documents submitted in
support of the claim but also on the affinity test,
which would include the anthropological and
ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However,
it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an
absolute rule, which could be applied
mechanically to examine a caste claim.
Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad
parameters could be kept in view while dealing
with a caste claim:
( i ) 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.
In case the applicant is the first generation ever
to attend school, the availability of any
documentary evidence becomes difficult, but
that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of
his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is the

3
(2012) 1 SCC 113
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 7 of 14

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 8 of 14


8. It can, thus, be seen that this Court held that 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. Insofar as the applicability of
the affinity test is concerned, the Court observed that a
cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been observed
that a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat
immune to the cultural development happening around
them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative
factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and
contact with other communities, these communities tend
to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially
match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. It is,
therefore, held that the affinity test may not be regarded
as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant
with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that merely
because the applicant does not match the tribe’s peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 9 of 14


customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into
consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the
Scheduled Tribe.
9. In the present case, the appellant has placed on
record the School Admission and Leaving Extract in
respect of his grandfather namely, Jalba Malba Makalwad,
th
recorded on 10 October, 1943 which indicates his caste
as Koli Mahadev. Though the report of the handwriting
expert is inconclusive as to whether there is interpolation
or not, we have examined the said document with a
magnifying glass.
10. On the perusal of the entry, it is clear to us that the
words Koli Mahadev written in the entry are in the same
ink and in the same handwriting. Therefore, we find that
there could be no scope for interpolation in the said entry.
It is further to be noted that on the basis of this pre-
Independence entry, the school records of the appellant’s
father, Madhav Jalba Makalwad and his uncle, Vyankat
Jalba Makalwad also show the caste as Koli Mahadev.
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 10 of 14


11. One of the reasons given by the High Court in not
accepting the caste claim of the appellant is that the same
is not supported by any validated document. We are
informed that it is appellant’s father and the appellant who
have applied for the first time for validation of their Caste
Certificate. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the
claim of both, the appellant as well as his father.
12. In view of the pre-Independence document which
certifies that the appellant’s grandfather, Jalba Malba
Makalwad, to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, we are
of the considered opinion that a greater probative value
ought to have been given to the said document. However,
on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the said
document has been disbelieved.
13. Insofar as the affinity test is concerned, as held by
this Court in Anand (supra) , with the change in times,
migration and modernisation, the joining of people from
the tribal population in the mainstream of the society, the
fact that they are not in a position to recollect the
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 11 of 14


customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial of dead bodies, etc., of their tribe cannot be solely a
ground ipso facto to deny the said claim.
14.
We may also gainfully refer to a recent judgment of
this Court rendered by the three learned Judges in the
case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and
4
Others which reiterated the position that the affinity test
cannot be conclusive either way. It has been held that
when the 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 the
caste validity claim. It has been reiterated that the affinity
test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not
an essential part in the process of determination of
correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

15. Apart from that, the view taken in Anand (supra) that
pre-Independence documents will have a greater probative

4
(2023) 16 SCC 415
CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 12 of 14


value while considering the claim of the applicant has been
followed by this Court as well as various High Courts in
catena of decisions.
CONCLUSION

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 13 of 14


18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.


….……….……………………..CJI.
(B.R.GAVAI)


…….………..……………………..J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)


……………..……………………..J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
August 12, 2025.

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 14 of 14