A Scheduled Tribe certificate may be cancelled where overwhelming evidence disproves the claimed community status.

The petitioner challenged the State Level Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 13 August 2021, which found that he did not belong to the Hindu Irular Scheduled Tribe and cancelled his community certificate.

He relied on his own certificates and certificates issued to two siblings, while the Committee relied on school records identifying the petitioner and several family members as Hindu Naidu, together with an anthropologist’s assessment.

The petitioner also relied on earlier enquiries that had accepted his claim; the High Court considered the Committee’s enquiry record and dismissed the writ petition.

Whether the Scrutiny Committee’s finding that the petitioner did not belong to the Hindu Irular Scheduled Tribe, and its cancellation of his community certificate, was sustainable on the evidence and procedure adopted.

Whether the Committee’s order was liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner’s explanation, procedural irregularity, or inadequate reasoning.

Under Article 226, the Court may review a community-status determination for legal or procedural infirmity.

In a verification proceeding, the claimant bears the burden of substantiating the claimed community status; the determination may be made on the totality of relevant documentary and other evidence.

The Court referred to Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, as the authority governing scrutiny of Scheduled Tribe claims, and to the principles on verification of communal status discussed by the Full Bench in R. Gurusamy v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, W.P. No. 23827 of 2025 and connected cases.

The Court found that the petitioner’s community certificates and those of two siblings were unsupported by the original revenue files, which were unavailable.

By contrast, school records identified the petitioner and some siblings as Hindu Naidu or Telugu Naidu; records also described two of his children as Hindu Naidu.

The Court treated these records, together with the anthropologist’s assessment and other family-related material, as overwhelming evidence supporting the Committee’s conclusion.

It rejected the challenges to the reasoning and procedure, finding that the Committee had considered the petitioner’s explanation and that a change in committee membership did not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings.

The writ petition was dismissed, the impugned cancellation order remained undisturbed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed; no costs were awarded.