Authentic pre-Constitution records identifying Thakur carry primacy; affinity testing cannot alone defeat Scheduled Tribe claims.

The petitioner claimed to belong to the Thakur, Scheduled Tribe community for service purposes. She had obtained a caste certificate from the Executive Magistrate, Amalner, on 22 April 1983. Her employer referred the claim to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, which rejected it by order dated 7 June 2011, principally on the ground that she had failed the socio-cultural “affinity test”.

The petitioner relied on her father’s birth extract issued in 1939, recording her grandfather’s caste as “Thakur,” her father’s School Leaving Certificate issued in 1949 recording his caste as “Hindu Thakur,” and her father’s service record recording the caste as “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in light of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra.

Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner’s Thakur Scheduled Tribe claim solely because she did not satisfy the socio-cultural affinity test, despite the existence of genuine pre-Constitutional documents recording her family’s caste as Thakur?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the Scrutiny Committee to issue a Scheduled Tribe validity certificate?

The Court applied the principles governing verification of Scheduled Tribe claims under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, observing that Thakur was included as a Scheduled Tribe for the first time by the Presidential notification dated 6 September 1950.

It relied principally on Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, which recognises that authentic pre-Constitutional documents showing the caste of an applicant or ancestors possess the highest probative value.

It further applied Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 16 SCC 415, holding that the affinity test is not a litmus test and is relevant only where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary material; such cases should not be mechanically referred for vigilance or affinity inquiry.

The Court also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Parmar, (2007) 1 SCC 80, and subsequent Bombay High Court decisions concerning the evidentiary value of pre-Constitutional records and the distinction between the Thakur Scheduled Tribe and other communities bearing the surname or caste name Thakur.

The Court found that the petitioner had produced genuine and undisputed pre-Constitutional records: the 1939 birth extract of her father, identifying her grandfather as Thakur, and the 1949 School Leaving Certificate of her father, recording his caste as Hindu Thakur.

Since these documents predated the 1950 Presidential Order, they carried substantial probative value and could not reasonably have been created to secure the benefit of Scheduled Tribe reservations.

The Scrutiny Committee had considered these documents but effectively disregarded them because the petitioner did not satisfy the affinity test.

Applying Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti, the Court held that affinity could not override strong and authentic documentary evidence or operate as a conclusive test.

The Court further noted that the absence of the expression “Thakur Scheduled Tribe” in pre-Constitutional records was not fatal, because the Scheduled Tribe classification itself arose only after the 1950 Presidential Order; there was also no material showing that the petitioner belonged to a non-tribal or upper-caste Thakur community.

It directed the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, to issue the petitioner, Vina Eknath Saindane @ Vijaya Pramod Thakur, a validity certificate certifying her as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe within eight weeks.

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