Bombay High Court
SANDIP SHRIKANT AHIREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Scrutiny Committee’s order was perverse and must be quashed; the petitioner is entitled to recognition as a member of the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandip Shrikant Ahire, challenged a 24 May 2017 order of the Scrutiny Committee that invalidated his claim to belong to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, relying solely on the affinity test and area restriction. He submitted pre‑independence documents (1938, 1919, 1925, 1934) showing his forefathers recorded as ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, which the Committee discarded. The State argued the Committee correctly applied the affinity test. The High Court, relying on its earlier decisions in Abasaheb Thakur (2021), Lahu Dashrath Thakur (2025), Ravindra Khare (2012), Anand (Supreme Court) and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti cases, held that the affinity test cannot be the sole basis for rejection and that pre‑independence documents have high probative value. Consequently, the Court found the Committee’s order perverse, quashed it, and directed issuance of a validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe claim by relying solely on the affinity test and area restriction.
- Whether pre‑independence documentary evidence should be given decisive weight in determining caste claims.
- Whether the affinity test can be a sole criterion for invalidating a tribe claim.
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe
- caste claim
- affinity test
- pre‑independence documents
- Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe list
- tribe verification
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:16303-DB
966
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
966 WRIT PETITION NO. 11735 OF 2017
Sandip Shrikant Ahire
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr.Arun H. Koralkar, Mr.Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondents/State
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : 10TH APRIL 2026
PER COURT (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J. ):-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for
Respondent/State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2017
passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating
the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled
Tribe.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there
being oldest documents having probative value of pre-independence
era pertaining to his cousin grandfather of the year 1938 showing his
caste as ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe the said document has been
discarded by Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee and has
Narwade
966
-2-
invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner solely on the ground of
affinity test and area restriction. The petitioner therefore urged that
since there is oldest documents pertaining to pre independence era
showing the caste of the forefathers of the petitioner as ‘Thakur’,
Scheduled Tribe, Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee has
committed an error in discarding the said oldest documents and
passing the impugned order. He, therefore, urge to set aside the
impugned order and allowing the Writ Petition.
4. Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order
thereby contending that Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee has
rightly considered the aspect with regard to the affinity test as well as
area restriction. He, therefore, urge that the Writ Petition deserves to
be dismissed.
5. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP, we find that this Court
has already taken a view in the case of Abasaheb Thakur Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.7472/2021 with other
connected writ petitions by judgment and order dated 25.02.2026
holding that the affinity test is not a litmus test for deciding the tribe
claim and in the light of oldest documents the benefit should be given
to the claimants.
Narwade
966
-3-
6. For better appreciation, we reproduce the observations of this
Court in the case of Abasaheb s/o. Gulabrao Thakur Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) which reads thus :-
“12. Learned AGP also sought to contend that though the
documents produced by the petitioner is showing caste as ‘Thakur’
that ipso facto does not mean that the petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe when ‘Thakur’ caste is also shown in Upper Caste,
however, this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur vs.
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region
Nandurbar and others decided on 11.03.2025 in Writ Petition
No.9283 of 2012 relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in
Writ Petition No. 11241 of 2012, has dealt with the similar issue.
The relevant observations of this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath
Thakur (supra) and more particularly paragraph No.9 reads thus :
“9. …………………………………………………….
In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the
decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Ravindra
Pralhadrao Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in
Writ Petition No.11241/2012. The coordinate bench had
occasion to deal with the issue that if only Thakur is
mentioned as caste in pre-constitutional document, then
what would be the consequences. We reproduce paragraph
nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6:
3. We have carefully considered the submissions.
It will be necessary to make a reference to the
impugned judgment and order. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee has referred to the school
record of the Petitioner's father which Committee
has also referred to the death extract of the grand
father of the discloses that in the year 1948, his
caste was recorded as "Thakur, The Scrutiny
Petitioner which shows that in the year 1947, his
caste has been shown as "Thakur. The third
important document referred to by the Scrutiny
Committee is the service book of the Petitioner's
father which shows that his caste was "Thakur.
These three documents have been brushed aside
by the Scrutiny Committee by making following
observations:
As said earlier, the only caste entry as Thakur
does not clarifies whether the incumbent belongs
Narwade
966
-4-
to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or Thakur, non-tribal
group. Hence, though the document is oldest, the
same cannot be treated as conclusive in nature
while determining the tribe claim of the applicant.
4. We fail to understand as to how the Caste
Scrutiny Committee expects. the documents of the
years 1947-1948 to mention as to whether the
caste "Thakur" belongs to the category of
Scheduled Tribe or the category of non-tribal. In
the years 1947-1948, such entries could not have
been made. Another finding recorded by the
Tribunal is that the Petitioner could not establish
his affinity to the caste and to the area. On this
aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to
what is held by the Apex Court in the case of
Anand (supra) in Paragraph 22. The Paragraph 22
of the said decision reads thus:
18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted
paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim
has to be considered not only on a thorough
examination of the documents submitted in
support of the claim but also on the affinity test,
which would include the anthropological and
ethnological traits etc., of the applicant. However,
it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an
absolute rule, which could be applied
mechanically to examine a caste claim.
Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad
parameters could be kept in view while dealing
with a caste claim:
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence,
greater reliance may be placed on pre
Independence documents because they furnish a
higher degree of probative value to the
declaration of status of a caste, as compared to
post Independence documents. In case the
applicant is the first generation ever to attend
school, the availability of any documentary
evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto
does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact
the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to
attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of
the applicant may be given. Needless to add that
in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a
document, its veracity has to be tested on the
basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity
Narwade
966
-5-
has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses
on the ethnological connections with the
scheduled tribe, a cautious approach has to be
adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were
somewhat immune to the cultural development
happening around them, the affinity test could
serve as a determinative factor. However, with the
migrations, modernisation and contact with other
communities, these communities tend to develop
and adopt new traits which may not essentially
match with the traditional characteristics of the
tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as
a litmus test for establishing the link of the
applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless,
the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a
scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit
extended to that tribe, cannot per se be
disregarded on the ground that his present traits
do not match his tribes peculiar anthropological
and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs,
mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity test
may be used to corroborate the documentary
evidence and should not be the sole criteria to
reject a claim."
(Underlines added)
5. The Apex Court has held that the affinity test may
be used to corroborate the documentary evidence but
should not be the sole criteria to reject the caste
claim.
6. In the present case, three material documents
which we have referred to earlier have been brushed
aside by the Scrutiny Committee by recording reasons
which are not at all justified and thus, the claim is
rejected primarily on the basis of the affinity test. In
view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Anand (supra), only on the basis of the affinity
test, the caste claim of the Petitioner could not have
been rejected."
13. It would also be apposite to refer to paragraph No.10 of
the Judgment of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra) which reads
thus :
Narwade
966
-6-
“10. The present case is squarely covered by the
principles laid down by the coordinate bench referring
to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of
Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims and Others (supra). Even reliance on the
affinity test cannot be a sole criteria to reject the
claim. The finding recorded by the Committee for
discarding the pre-constitutional record is perverse
which is appearing on page no.48 of the paper-book.”
14. So far as the contention of learned AGP relying on the
findings recorded by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee
regarding various categories of Scheduled Tribe with
synonymity is concerned, no doubt the Scrutiny Committee
has relied on five categories of caste ‘Thakur’ however, we are
concerned with Serial No.1 as it refers to ‘Thakur’ which is
found Serial No.44 of the Constitutional Order. Serial Nos.2
and 3 are ‘Thakar’ and therefore, they are irrelevant. Serial
Nos.4 and 5 refers to ‘Thakur’ of upper caste or some other
caste.
15. We however, find that there was no occasion for either
the petitioner or his forefathers to fraudulently record their
caste as ‘Thakur’ so as to claim themselves of belonging to
Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’. In the light of documents of pre-
independence era, we are of the considered view that the
petitioner and his forefathers have to be treated as Scheduled
Tribe ‘Thakur’ more so in the absence of any material to show
that they belong to the upper caste ‘Thakur’. We have already
held that one entry showing the caste of petitioner's uncle as
‘Brahmbhat’, cannot discard the previous entries showing the
caste of petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.
We are therefore, of the considered view that the case of
petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra).
16. Last but not the least, it is contended by learned AGP
that in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2023
(16) SCC 415 as well as the subsequent order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court dated 12.12.2025 in Civil Appeal No.
2502 of 2022 in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors., the Scrutiny Committee can take the affinity test as one
of the relevant factor for invalidation of tribe claim and this
exactly what has been done by the Scrutiny Committee while
invalidating the petitioner’s tribe claim of belonging to
‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe since, petitioner has failed to satisfy
Narwade
966
-7-
the affinity test.
17. In that regard, it would be profitable to refer to the
observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 21 of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
(supra).
“21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No.
2502 of 2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case"), the Full
Bench of the Bombay High Court has noted that
people having the surname "Thakur" belong to both
forward castes and various backward castes.
Therefore, the Full Bench may be right in saying that
in every case, only on the basis of the surname Thakur,
it cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that
the applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur
notified in the Entry 44 of the Maharashtra list.
However, we must note that in the case of a person
having the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in
the form of entry of the name of the caste as a Tribe or
Scheduled Tribe in the land records, school or college
records or any official records concerning the applicant
or his ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons
having the surname Thakur may belong to a forward
caste as well, it is not necessary that in every case, the
Scrutiny Committee should send the case to Vigilance
Cell. It all depends on the nature of the documents
produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the
probative value of the documents. Therefore,
whenever a caste claim regarding Thakur Scheduled
Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny Committee in
every case should not mechanically refer the case to
the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry including
affinity test. The reference to the Vigilance Cell can be
made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied
with the material produced by the applicant.”
18. It is clear from the observations of the Hon’ble Apex
Court that it would depend on the nature of the document
produced before the Scrutiny Committee for referring the
matter to the vigilance cell enquiry. We have already
observed that the documents pertaining to 1919,1925 and
1934 cannot be brushed aside which unequivocally shows the
tribe claim of petitioner’s forefathers of pertaining to ‘Thakur’
Scheduled Tribe. We therefore, do not find any substance in
contention of learned AGP in that regard.”
7. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is
Narwade
966
-8-
perverse and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside. We
therefore pass the following order :-
:: O R D E R ::
i. Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Respondent
No.2-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the tribe
claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled
Tribe is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner of belonging to
‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe as early as possible and
preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]
Narwade
Checking your session…