Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Priya Pramod Gajbe, a student who secured admission to the MBBS course against a Scheduled Tribe seat, claimed to belong to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Her case was referred to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Thane, which by order dated 12th December 2017 invalidated her claim on two grounds: (i) she failed the Affinity Test conducted during the vigilance inquiry, and (ii) she failed to prove that she originally belongs to an area where the Mana Scheduled Tribe resides. The appellant challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed her petition on 22nd December 2018. Aggrieved, she appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellant, the State of Maharashtra, and an intervenor. The appellant's counsel relied on the three-judge bench decision in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 326, arguing that once pre-Constitutional documents establish the claim, further reference to the Vigilance Cell is unnecessary, and the Affinity Test cannot be a litmus test. The State's counsel contended that the Scrutiny Committee and High Court correctly concluded that the appellant failed to establish her claim, noting that some documents showed her forefathers' entries as 'Mani' rather than 'Mana', creating a conflict that necessitated the Affinity Test. The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and the Scrutiny Committee's order, and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Scrutiny - Affinity Test - Pre-Constitutional Documents - The issue was whether the Scrutiny Committee could invalidate a caste claim solely on the basis of failure in the Affinity Test when pre-Constitutional documents supported the claim. The Supreme Court held that once pre-Constitutional documents establish the claim, further reference to Vigilance Cell is not necessary, and the Affinity Test cannot be applied as a litmus test. (Paras 5-6) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Scrutiny - Evidentiary Value - Pre-Constitutional documents have greater evidentiary value than the Affinity Test. The Court relied on Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 326, to hold that the Affinity Test cannot override documentary evidence. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scrutiny Committee and High Court were justified in invalidating the appellant's claim of belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe solely on the ground of failure in the Affinity Test, despite the existence of pre-Constitutional documents.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Scrutiny Committee, and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the matter afresh in light of the principles laid down in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra.
Law Points
- Affinity Test cannot be the sole basis to invalidate a caste claim
- Pre-Constitutional documents have greater evidentiary value
- Reference to Vigilance Cell not necessary if pre-Constitutional documents establish the claim
