Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a challenge to an order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, which had rejected the claim of siblings Rupali and Akshay Shinde that they belonged to the ‘Koli Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners, both students, had applied for tribe validity certificates to access educational reservations. Their father Sanjay, uncle Sunil, and aunt Ragini had already obtained validity certificates as Koli Mahadev between 2004 and 2006 after vigilance enquiries, and no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged against them. Despite this, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the petitioners’ claim on three principal grounds: first, that the family did not originally reside in a notified tribal area; second, that the school admission record of the father dated 17-09-1976 showed the word ‘Mahadev’ written in ballpoint pen while the preceding ‘Koli’ was in ink, suggesting an alteration, and earlier school records of paternal relatives mentioned only ‘Hindu’; and third, that the petitioners failed to satisfy the affinity test and home enquiry. The petitioners contended that the validity certificates of close paternal relatives are binding and that children inherit the tribe of the father. They argued that the Committee could not reject their claim on a mere suspicion of alteration without examining the original school registers, and that the affinity test could not override documentary kinship evidence. The High Court, after surveying a long line of precedents including Apoorva Nichale, Vaishali Ingale, Balvant Jalgaonkar, Sanjay Pardeshi, and Monika Thakur, held that when a father and other close relatives have obtained validity certificates after proper scrutiny, the Committee is bound to extend the same status to the children unless it is shown that the earlier certificates were procured by fraud or without proper enquiry. The Court found that the Committee had not examined the original school records to verify the alleged alteration, and that suspicion about an entry in different ink could not, by itself, justify rejection. The Court further held that the affinity test is not the sole deciding factor and cannot outweigh the weighty evidence of prior validity certificates of near relations. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 10-01-2018 and directed the Committee to issue tribe validity certificates to the petitioners forthwith.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Recognition of Tribe Claims - Binding Effect of Earlier Validity Certificates Issued to Close Paternal Relatives - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 342 - When validity certificates have been granted to the father, uncle, and aunt of the petitioners after due enquiry and no fraud is alleged, the Scrutiny Committee is bound to grant validity certificates to the petitioners as well, as a person inherits his tribe from his father. A different view on the same facts is impermissible, and inconsistent statuses within the same family cannot be created. (Paras 8-12) B) Scheduled Tribes - Scrutiny Committee's Discretion to Depart from Earlier Validity Certificates - Circumstances When a Different View is Permissible - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 342 - The Committee may take a contrary view from validity certificates of blood relatives only in special circumstances, such as fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of vital evidence, lack of proper enquiry, absence of an affinity test, or emergence of new contra evidence not available earlier. Mere suspicion or a different opinion is not enough. (Paras 8-12) C) Evidence - Appreciation of Documentary Evidence - Alleged Alteration in School Records - Not mentioned - When an entry in a school admission register is doubted because the word 'Mahadev' appears in different ink, the Committee must call the original records and examine the alteration. Suspicion alone, without positive material that the alteration was made at the instance of the claimant, cannot be a ground for rejection. (Paras 13-15) D) Scheduled Tribes - Affinity Test - Role in Determination of Tribe Claims - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 342 - The affinity test and home enquiry are not the sole criteria; when close paternal relatives have been validated as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the affinity test does not outweigh the documentary evidence of kinship validity. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioners as Koli Mahadev, a Scheduled Tribe, when their father, uncle, and aunt had already been granted validity certificates after due enquiry, and whether the Committee could rely on an alleged alteration in a school admission register and the affinity test to deny the claim.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 10.01.2018, and directed the Committee to issue validity certificates to the petitioners forthwith. The Court held that the previous validity certificates of the close paternal relatives are binding, the suspicion of alteration was not properly investigated, and the affinity test could not override the documentary evidence.
Law Points
- validity certificates of close paternal relatives are binding unless obtained by fraud
- committee cannot take a different view on same facts
- children inherit tribe from father
- suspicion of alteration in school record without positive evidence insufficient
- affinity test not sole criterion
- previous validity certificates are weighty evidence
- committee must call original records to verify alteration
