Santosh Baburao Maske v. State of Maharashtra

2. 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.”

3. The tribe Thakar has been recognised as Scheduled Tribe by virtue of SC/ST Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force with effect from 27th July 1997. The Petitioner was granted the caste certificate certifying Thakar tribe as recognised as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe order (2) 1976 which came into force w.e.f. 27th July 1997. The Petitioner was granted caste certificate certifying Thakar tribe as Scheduled tribe on 6th May 2002.

4. This Petition was filed in the year 2008. This Court had dismissed the Writ Petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh consideration in light of the observations made in the order dated 12th December 2025.

5. The learned AGP opposed the petition and submitted that contradictory entries in respect of the caste claim have been produced by the Petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

6. The Petitioner has placed on record an additional affidavit thereby enclosing the copy of the decision dated 18th October 2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12097/2022 in the case of Janhavi Santosh Maske v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. The order dated 18th October 2022 passed during the pendency of the SLP is reproduced which reads thus: “ The caste of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur – Scheduled Tribe is invalidated. Amongst other submissions, one of the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the paternal cousin of the petitioner namely Dilip son of Mahadev has been issued with the validity certificate under the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2018 under judgment dated 16th April, 2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the validity is also issued to three of the paternal relatives of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, there is not a single contra entry on record Thakar-Magaslela was also subject matter of consideration before this Court in case of Dilip.

2. The learned AGP submits that the proposal is given for filing a Review Application of the order of this Court dated 16th April, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 1158 of

2018. The learned AGP submits that infact one of the paternal relative of the petitioner namely Karuna, her claim was also invalidated. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Committee by the petitioner.

3. The learned AGP further submits that the petitioner has failed in the affinity test also.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Karuna had challenge the said order by filing a writ petition. The writ petition is admitted and the judgment of the committee is stayed.