Last Updated:
The court declared the appellant belonged to the Koli Mahadev Tribe and directed the scrutiny committee to issue caste validity certificate to him within six weeks
The top court observed that with the passage of time, migration and modernisation have integrated many tribal populations into the mainstream, and the inability to recall anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, marriage or funeral practices should not automatically result in rejection of a claim. (File image/AFP)
The Supreme Court, on August 12, allowed an appeal seeking recognition of Scheduled Tribe status, holding that the affinity test is not a litmus test to determine caste or tribe claims and should not be treated as an essential step in every case. The court stressed that when available, credible pre-Independence documents must be given greater probative value.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld an order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of appellant Yogesh Madhav Makalwad. The court directed the committee to issue a Caste Validity Certificate within six weeks, holding that the appellant belonged to the Koli Mahadev Tribe.
Recommended Stories
The top court observed that with the passage of time, migration and modernisation have integrated many tribal populations into the mainstream, and the inability to recall anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, marriage or funeral practices should not automatically result in rejection of a claim.
Referring to the record, the bench noted a pre-Independence document from 1943 that recorded the caste of the appellant’s grandfather, Jalba Malba Makalwad, as Koli Mahadev. It held that this entry carried greater evidentiary value and had been wrongly disbelieved on the basis of assumptions.
The judgment cited Anand v Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims (2012), which established that pre-Independence records carry a higher degree of probative value when declaring caste status than post-Independence documents. In Anand, it was also held that the affinity test is not conclusive for establishing a link with a Scheduled Tribe, and failure to match specific anthropological features should not be the sole ground to reject a claim.
In the present matter, the State had alleged interpolation in the 1943 school record of the appellant’s grandfather. The bench considered the handwriting expert’s report inconclusive and, after examining the document with a magnifying glass, found the words “Koli Mahadev” written in the same ink and handwriting as the rest of the entry, ruling out tampering.
The court also relied on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v State of Maharashtra (2023), where a three-judge bench reiterated that the affinity test cannot be determinative either way. That judgment clarified that when conducted by a vigilance cell, the test’s results must be weighed along with other material of probative value in deciding caste validity claims.
Applying these principles, the court held that the Scrutiny Committee’s invalidation of the appellant’s caste claim, and the Bombay High Court’s July 23, 2024, order upholding it, could not be sustained.
The facts showed that in 1943, the appellant’s grandfather was admitted to Zilla Parishad Primary School, Narangal, Degloor Taluka, Nanded District, with his caste recorded as Koli Mahadev. In 1975 and 1979, the appellant’s uncle, Vyankat Jalba Makalwad, and father, Madhav Jalba Makalwad, were admitted to Zilla Parishad Primary School, Kabirwadi, Degloor Taluka, with their caste recorded as Koli Mahadev. In 2005, the appellant’s admission record at Janta Vidya Mandir Primary School, Murud Taluka, Latur District, also reflected Koli Mahadev as his caste.
Census data from 2001 indicated that the appellant’s village had a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population exceeding 40 per cent.
In 2019, after securing 334 out of 720 marks in the NEET UG examination and becoming eligible for medical admission, the appellant applied for validation of his caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee, however, rejected his claim and that of his father, disbelieving multiple documents. On June 24, 2019, it passed an order confiscating the caste certificate.
The appellant challenged the order in the High Court, but the court upheld the committee’s decision. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was argued that the committee had failed to accord due evidentiary weight to the pre-Independence record and had erred in relying heavily on the affinity test.
The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the earlier findings were based on presumptions, without adequately considering binding precedents on the probative value of old records. The court declared the committee’s order and the High Court’s decision unsustainable in law and ordered the issuance of the Caste Validity Certificate.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl…Read More
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl… Read More
view comments
Read More
