Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Priya Pramod Gajbe, a student who secured admission in the first year of MBBS Degree Course in a college in Maharashtra during the academic year 2016-17 against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe, claimed to belong to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Her case was referred to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Thane. The Scrutiny Committee, by order dated 12th December 2017, invalidated her claim on two grounds: (i) she failed to satisfy the Affinity Test conducted during the vigilance inquiry, and (ii) she failed to prove that she originally belongs to an area where people of Mana Scheduled Tribe reside. 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, who relied on the recent three-judge bench decision in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and Others, submitting that once pre-Constitutional documents established that the appellant belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, further reference to the Vigilance Cell was unnecessary, and the Affinity Test cannot be applied as a litmus test. The counsel for the State of Maharashtra argued that the Scrutiny Committee and High Court rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish her tribe, noting that some documents showed her forefathers' entries as 'Mani', indicating conflicting documents necessitating the Affinity Test. The Supreme Court, without delving into the merits, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration, directing it to give due weight to the pre-Constitutional documents and not to treat the Affinity Test as the sole basis for decision.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate - 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 existed showing the appellant's tribe as 'Mana'. The Supreme Court held that once pre-Constitutional documents establish the tribe, further reference to Vigilance Cell is unnecessary, and the Affinity Test cannot be applied as a litmus test. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the claim giving due weight to pre-Constitutional documents. (Paras 5-6)
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 showing her tribe.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the Scrutiny Committee, and remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. The Committee was directed to give due weight to the pre-Constitutional documents and not to treat the Affinity Test as the sole basis for its decision.
Law Points
- Affinity Test cannot be the sole basis for invalidating a caste claim
- Pre-Constitutional documents have greater evidentiary value
- Reference to Vigilance Cell unnecessary when pre-Constitutional documents establish tribe
