Genuine pre-Constitutional caste records cannot be rejected solely for failure of the affinity test.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 24 December 2004 by which the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated her caste certificate dated 4 August 1988 claiming membership of the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

Her claim was supported by pre-Constitutional and other historical records, including: (i) a 1913 birth and death extract recording her great-grandfather Tukaram Ramu’s caste as “Thakur”; (ii) a 1944 record recording her grandfather Chandrabhan Tukaram’s caste as “Thakur”; (iii) a 1949 affidavit and school admission record concerning her father Tulshiram, also recording his caste as “Thakur”; and (iv) a school transfer certificate issued in 1958 containing the same entry.

The petitioner’s claim had previously been invalidated in 1997, but that decision was set aside and remanded in Writ Petition No. 696 of 1998. The claim was again invalidated in 2002 substantially on the basis of the affinity test; that decision was set aside in Writ Petition No. 1887 of 2002 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

In the third round, the Committee again invalidated the claim, relying principally on the Vigilance Cell report and the petitioner’s alleged failure to demonstrate affinity with the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

An earlier Division Bench judgment dismissing the petition was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court, which directed individual consideration of the matter.

Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee erred in invalidating the petitioner’s claim to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe principally on the basis of the affinity test, despite the existence of genuine pre-Constitutional documents recording the caste of her paternal ancestors as “Thakur”?

Whether entries describing the petitioner’s ancestors simply as “Thakur”, without expressly stating “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”, were sufficient to support the petitioner’s claim in the absence of contrary material showing affiliation with an upper-caste or non-tribal Thakur community?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a declaration of belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe and issuance of a caste validity certificate?

The Court applied the principles governing verification of Scheduled Tribe claims under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, under which Thakur is a notified Scheduled Tribe.

Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, holds that genuine pre-Constitutional documents recording the caste or tribe of an applicant or ancestors possess the highest probative value.

Relying on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326, the Court held that a person’s surname or caste entry as “Thakur” cannot automatically establish Scheduled Tribe status, but the Scrutiny Committee must assess the nature and probative value of the documents and must not mechanically refer every claim for a Vigilance Cell inquiry or affinity test.

Under Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113, the affinity test is not a litmus test and cannot override reliable documentary evidence, particularly pre-Constitutional records.

The Court further relied on subsequent Bombay High Court decisions holding that pre-Constitutional records could not be expected to use the expression “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”, since the constitutional notification identifying the relevant Scheduled Tribe was issued only after the relevant historical entries.

The Court found that the petitioner’s documentary evidence traced the “Thakur” entry through three successive paternal generations: her great-grandfather, grandfather, and father.

These records were neither alleged to be forged nor shown not to relate to the petitioner’s ancestors. Accordingly, they carried the highest probative value under the principles in Madhuri Patil and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti.

The Committee did not discard the documents as unauthentic; instead, it treated the absence of a specific “Thakur Scheduled Tribe” description and the petitioner’s failure in the affinity test as determinative.

The High Court held that this approach was legally erroneous. The affinity test is only an aid to assessment and is not conclusive, particularly where reliable pre-Constitutional records support the claim.

Further, because the relevant Scheduled Tribe notification post-dated the historical records, those records could not reasonably have used the precise expression “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”.

In the absence of material establishing that the petitioner belonged to an upper-caste or non-tribal Thakur community, the Committee’s reliance on affinity alone amounted to a serious jurisdictional error.

The order dated 24 December 2004 was quashed and set aside.

The Court declared that the petitioner belongs to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe and directed the respondents to issue her a caste validity certificate within eight weeks.