Introduction:
In Vedant & Anr. v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Ors. [Writ Petition Nos. 1849 of 2022 & 2360 of 2022], the Bombay High Court delivered a significant judgment clarifying the evidentiary value of pre-constitutional documents in the determination of Scheduled Tribe claims. The Division Bench comprising Justices M.S. Jawalkar and Pravin S. Patil quashed the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, and directed the issuance of caste validity certificates to Vedant Wankhade and his father. The petitioners claimed to belong to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe and relied on a series of documents dating back to 1912. The Committee, however, dismissed their claim based on an affinity test and certain minor inconsistencies in the records. The High Court emphasized that the affinity test is only a corroborative tool and cannot override the evidentiary value of consistent pre-1950 records that have been verified by the Vigilance Cell. Observing that the Committee had acted contrary to settled legal principles, the Court noted that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioners had the “greatest probative value” and deserved due weightage, especially as the Vigilance Cell found them to be genuine.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, Vedant Wankhade and his father, approached the High Court challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated December 31, 2021, which had rejected their claim of belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. Represented by counsel, the petitioners submitted that their family lineage has consistently been recorded as ‘Thakur’ in official documents dating from 1912 to 1948. These documents included school records, birth registers, and an adoption deed dated 1939, which explained certain discrepancies in family names. They argued that the Scrutiny Committee had erred by prioritizing the affinity test over the documentary evidence despite the long-standing principle that pre-constitutional records carry the highest probative value. The petitioners emphasized that 17 authentic documents were placed before the Committee, all verified by the Vigilance Cell, and that these records conclusively established their Scheduled Tribe status. According to them, the Committee’s reliance on just two inconsistent entries, which were adequately explained, was arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court in similar matters. The petitioners also argued that the affinity test cannot be applied rigidly, especially in the absence of scientific data about the specific traits of the ‘Thakur’ tribe, and that socio-cultural changes over decades have naturally altered linguistic and cultural practices. They asserted that their answers to the affinity questions were accurate and sufficient, and the Committee’s refusal to consider them fairly amounted to a miscarriage of justice. It was further submitted that the Committee ignored binding judicial precedents which mandate giving preference to pre-1950 records over other forms of evidence, and thus its order was illegal and liable to be set aside.
Arguments of the Respondents (Scrutiny Committee and State Authorities):
The Scrutiny Committee, through its counsel, defended its order by contending that the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners was not sufficient to conclusively establish their claim of belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. The Committee argued that while the petitioners had produced several documents, there were inconsistencies and discrepancies in names across some records, raising doubts about their authenticity and reliability. The Committee placed heavy reliance on the affinity test, asserting that the petitioners’ responses during verification did not convincingly establish their cultural and traditional traits as members of the ‘Thakur’ tribe. It was argued that the affinity test is an important tool used to ascertain the genuineness of claims, especially in cases where documentary evidence is either conflicting or inconclusive. The Committee maintained that, despite the Vigilance Cell’s verification, the petitioners failed to meet the criteria laid down in the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificates Rules, which require both documentary and cultural corroboration. The respondents also submitted that Scheduled Tribe status is conferred on specific groups not just by caste name but also by unique socio-cultural characteristics, and that mere documentary references to the caste name ‘Thakur’ do not automatically confer Scheduled Tribe status. According to them, the Committee acted within its jurisdiction and evaluated the evidence based on established criteria, and its findings should not be lightly interfered with.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully reviewing the submissions and the record, the Bombay High Court found merit in the petitioners’ arguments and quashed the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Court underscored that pre-constitutional documentary evidence holds the highest evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded on trivial grounds. The Bench observed:
“Entry of a Tribe in the list of Scheduled Tribes has to be read as it is. No Authorities, including the Court, can add or subtract anything from said entry. In our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to give due weightage in so many pre-constitutional documents, which are having greatest probative value in the eyes of law.”
The Court noted that the petitioners had submitted 17 documents spanning several decades, from 1912 to 1948, all of which recorded their caste as ‘Thakur’. The Vigilance Cell had confirmed the genuineness of these records, and there was no substantial reason to disbelieve them. The Court further pointed out that minor discrepancies, such as variations in names, were reasonably explained by the 1939 registered adoption deed, which clarified the family lineage.
On the question of affinity, the Bench reiterated that while the affinity test is a useful aid, it is not conclusive. The Court observed that the affinity test cannot be applied in a mechanical manner to reject genuine claims, especially when there is strong documentary evidence to the contrary. Justice Jawalkar, writing for the Bench, noted that the petitioners had satisfactorily answered the questions relating to cultural practices and traditions, and the Committee’s rejection based on an alleged lack of affinity was unjustified. The Court also emphasized that in the absence of any scientific data or established traits of the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, the Committee’s reliance on affinity over authentic documents was flawed.
The Court strongly criticized the Committee’s approach, observing that this was not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern where valid claims supported by pre-1950 documents were being rejected without proper reasoning. The judgment stated:
“It is not a single case in which the Committee has acted in this manner; the Committee has been acting contrary to the guidelines and disbelieving the documents which are prior to 1950 by discarding thereby valid claims.”
In light of these findings, the Court quashed the Committee’s order dated December 31, 2021, and directed it to issue caste validity certificates to Vedant Wankhade and his father within two weeks. The Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that documentary evidence, particularly pre-constitutional records, should take precedence over subjective tests like affinity when determining Scheduled Tribe claims. It also serves as a cautionary reminder to authorities to adhere to established legal standards and avoid arbitrary rejection of claims that are supported by genuine and verified records.
The ruling is significant because it reiterates the need to respect historical records and the constitutional mandate of protecting Scheduled Tribe rights. By emphasizing that neither courts nor authorities can add or subtract from the list of recognized tribes, the judgment strengthens the integrity of the verification process and provides clarity on how documentary evidence should be assessed.