A real sibling’s caste validity certificate warrants corresponding recognition of the claimant’s tribal status.

The petitioner claimed to belong to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe under Entry 44, Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and had been issued a caste certificate on 27 February 1991.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, invalidated his claim by order dated 26 July 2002.

His earlier challenge before the Nagpur Bench was dismissed, but the Supreme Court subsequently set aside that decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

During the remanded proceedings, the petitioner relied on the caste validity certificate granted to his real brother, Dattatray Manohar Dahake, pursuant to the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Writ Petition No. 6342 of 2018 dated 23 March 2026.

The family relationship was supported by a family tree verified by the Executive Magistrate, and the Scrutiny Committee thereafter issued the brother’s validity certificate on 28 April 2026.

The State did not dispute the relationship or the correctness of the family tree, but opposed interference with the Committee’s original decision.

Whether the petitioner, whose real brother had been granted a final caste validity certificate as belonging to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe, was entitled to similar recognition on the basis of the established blood relationship and family tree.

Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 26 July 2002 invalidating the petitioner’s caste claim was liable to be quashed and set aside.

The Court applied Entry 44, Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, which recognises “Thakur” as a Scheduled Tribe.

It relied on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 16 SCC 415, particularly the principle that authentic pre-Constitution documents showing tribal status possess high probative value and, where such material is genuine and reliable, a reference to the Vigilance Cell may not be necessary.

The Court also applied Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, under which a caste validity certificate granted to a close blood relative ordinarily binds the Scrutiny Committee in relation to another member of the same family, unless there are distinguishing facts or contrary material.

The Court further considered the reasoning in the brother’s case, where eight pre-Independence documents recording the family’s tribe as “Thakur” were accepted and the Committee’s contrary approach was found perverse.

The Court found that the brother’s caste validity certificate had been granted after adjudication on merits and had attained finality.

The relationship between the petitioner and his brother was undisputed and supported by a duly verified family tree.

Since the brother was a real blood relative and the same family evidence had already resulted in a final declaration of “Thakur” status, the principle in Apoorva required consistent treatment of the petitioner’s claim.

The Court also relied on the merits of the brother’s judgment, which had accepted multiple pre-Independence documents showing the family’s tribal identity and had rejected the Committee’s reliance on corrected “Bhat” entries.

In these circumstances, maintaining the petitioner’s invalidation would be inconsistent with the final adjudication concerning his immediate family member; consequently, the original Committee order could not stand.

The Court quashed and set aside the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 26 July 2002 and declared the deceased petitioner to belong to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe.

The legal heirs were directed to make an appropriate application to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the caste validity certificate on the basis of that declaration.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.