Bhagyashri Pramod Thakur v. State of Maharashtra

2. The Petitioner's caste claim as belonging to Thakur Scheduled tribe is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee.

3. Our attention is invited to order dated 12th December 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Brief background of the matter is as follows: The rejection of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 12th December 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal, set aside the order passed by this Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The relevant paragraphs from the order dated 12th December 2025 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. “1. The applications for substitution are allowed after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any, subject to all just exceptions. Applications for intervention/impleadment are also allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The issue that falls for consideration in these cases is whether the appellants or other similarly placed persons, who claim themselves belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, are entitled to claim the benefits as would enure to the said Scheduled Tribe. It may be noticed that the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has, vide the impugned judgment, upheld the cancellation of caste certificates of a large number of persons because they did not fulfil the ‘affinity test’ for being considered as part of the Scheduled Tribe.

3. It is not in dispute that a three-Judge Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 24.03.2023 (passed in the instant proceedings). reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415, has held as follows: “ 36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that: (a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise. (b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding will the caste validity claim; and

(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.”

4. It may be seen from the above that this Court has categorically ruled that only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an inquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by applicant/claimant (like the appellants), the case can be referred to the Vigilance Cell. For doing so, the Scrutiny Committee is obligated to record brief reasons in support of the conclusion that it was not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. The occasion for holding a further fact-finding inquiry by the Vigilance Cell, would arise only when preliminary test prescribed for the Screening Committee has been met with.

5. In light of the cited decision, we are satisfied that all these cases require a fresh consideration at the hands of the High Court, especially to determine whether the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee, the consequential further inquiry, if any, by the Vigilance Cell, and the final conclusion arrived by the Scrutiny Committee are in consonance with the parameters laid down by this Court. These appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed, the judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside, and the cases are remanded to the High Court. The Writ Petitions filed by the appellants/claimants shall stand revived for being heard and decided afresh.

6. It is clarified that the questions of law, which are not answered by the above-cited judgment, as well as other subsequent decisions of this Court, are kept open, and the parties will be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the High Court. It also goes without saying that in this renewed consideration, the parties may rely upon additional documents, if any, and the High Court may accord them an opportunity for the same.”

5. This Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others[1] in Paragraph No.4 observed thus:

6. The Petitioner had produced the genealogy before the Scrutiny Committee when the caste claim was under consideration. In the genealogy, the Petitioner’s blood brother’s name Prathmesh Pramod Thakur was indicated. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any doubt about relationship of the Petitioner with Mr. Prathmesh Thakur. During the pendency of the SLP, the Petitioner’s real brother Prathmesh has been issued a certificate of validity dated 28th February 2018 as belonging to Thakur Scheduled tribe. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such certificate was issued after due enquiry and calling for a vigilance cell report.

7. The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to Thakur tribe has been invalidated mainly by applying the affinity test. The learned AGP argued in support of the impugned order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v/s. State of Maharashtra[2] held that affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

8. Thus, in Maharashtra Adiwasi (supra), the following three essential prerequisites for granting caste validity certificates were outlined by Their Lordships at the paragraph 24 of the judgment quoted above: