'Caste Scrutiny Committee Cannot Direct Reinquiry Without Reasons After Vigilance Cell Cleared Validity Of Pre-Independence Documents': Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court set aside the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which had invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners belonging to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The Court held that once the vigilance cell had admitted the validity of the pre-independence documents, the committee could not have mechanically directed a re-enquiry without recording reasons.

Justice Pravin S. Patil was hearing two petitions filed against the order of caste scrutiny committee. The petitioners had relied on a 1932 Kotwal book entry showing their grandfather/great-grandfather, Fakiraya, as belonging to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The first vigilance cell report, dated 02.05.2019, verified this entry and accepted its authenticity. However, the committee directed a re-enquiry without justification, and in the second report, the entry was discarded on the ground that it appeared in another case. On that basis, the committee rejected the caste claims, instead relying on later documents showing the family as 'Mani' or 'Mani-Kunbi', and also recorded that the petitioners failed the affinity test.

The Court stressed that greater weight must be given to pre-independence documents because they have a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-independence documents, as recognised by the Supreme Court. It observed that the caste scrutiny committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim, and, therefore, it can only scrutinise the documents and material produced by the applicant; the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim.

The Court observed that under Rule 12(2) of the 2003 Rules, reference to the vigilance cell is warranted only if the committee is dissatisfied with the documents produced.

“Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted 12 (2) of the Rules, 2003 and held that… only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant, in that case only to refer the documents to Vigilance Cell,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that the affinity test cannot be treated as a litmus test for determining caste claims. The Court noted there is no ambiguity that the caste is mentioned as 'Mana,' and discarding such an important document only because the Vigilance Cell stated that the same is found in another case, without giving any details as to how the same is relevant in the matter, is a grave error committed by the respondent committee.

The Court also remarked that while considering the customs and traditions followed by any particular community, it must be established on the record that the person conducting the enquiry has experience and has done research in the matter of said tribe, and on the basis of such research, he has made his remark on the report.

The Court observed that the entire exercise of the committee was contrary to the law. It said:

“… once the vigilance cell admitted the validity of the document in its first vigilance report, there was no reason recorded as to why the matter was again referred to the vigilance cell.”

Holding that the committee had acted contrary to law by disregarding valuable evidence and ordering a re-enquiry without reasons, the Court quashed the impugned order.

Case Title: Dnyaneshwar v. Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors. [Writ Petition Nos. 4237 & 4240 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order