Bombay High Court
SANGITA BHIKAJI MASAGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the petition to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh determination of the petitioner’s caste claim in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangita Bhikaji Masage, challenged the rejection of her claim to belong to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The High Court had dismissed her writ petition, but the Supreme Court partially allowed her appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and directing a fresh consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that an affinity test is not a mandatory litmus test and outlined procedural prerequisites for granting caste validity certificates. Relying on certificates issued to four of her paternal relatives, the petitioner argued that the Committee should issue a certificate in her favor. The High Court, applying the Supreme Court's guidelines, quashed the earlier order, remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh, expeditious determination, and ordered the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 22 January 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of belonging to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe is valid in view of certificates issued to her blood relatives.
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee correctly applied the affinity test and complied with procedural requirements under Supreme Court guidelines.
- Whether the High Court’s earlier order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the non‑essential nature of the affinity test govern the present case.
Subjects
- caste certificate
- Scheduled Tribe
- affinity test
- Scrutiny Committee
- validity certificate
- remand
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
LSP 1 907 wp 5029.06.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 5029 of 2006
Sangita Bhikaji Masage … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents.
Mr. R.K.Mendadkar a/w. Priyanka Shaw, Jayshree Mendadkar,
Siddhant Sawai, Jagdish Kawale, Prajakta Pashtre Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. G.R.Raghuwanshi, AGP for
the Respondents-State.
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 13th January 2026.
Oral Judgment (Per M.S. Karnik, J) :
We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and Mr. Walimbe, the learned AGP appearing for
the Respondents-State, argued in support of the impugned order.
Digitally
signed by
LATA
LATA SUNIL
SUNIL PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2026.01.21
16:45:43
+0530
2. Our attention is invited to order dated 12 th December 2025
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Brief background of the matter is as follows: The rejection of
the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee
was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition before this
LSP 2 907 wp 5029.06.doc
Court, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order,
the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Vide order dated 12th December 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court partly allowed the Appeal, set aside the order passed by this
Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The
relevant paragraphs from the order dated 12th December 2025 are
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.
“1. The applications for substitution are allowed after
condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any,
subject to all just exceptions. Applications for
intervention/impleadment are also allowed, subject to all
just exceptions.
2. The issue that falls for consideration in these cases is
whether the appellants or other similarly placed persons,
who claim themselves belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled
Tribe, are entitled to claim the benefits as would enure to
the said Scheduled Tribe. It may be noticed that the Nagpur
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has, vide
the impugned judgment, upheld the cancellation of caste
certificates of a large number of persons because they did
not fulfil the ‘affinity test’ for being considered as part of
the Scheduled Tribe.
3. It is not in dispute that a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, vide judgment dated 24.03.2023 (passed in the
instant proceedings). reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415, has
held as follows:
LSP 3 907 wp 5029.06.doc
“ 36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an
enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the
applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While
referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny
Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the
conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to
the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the
conduct of affinity test will arise.
(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test
cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is
conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along
with all other material on record having probative value
will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny
Committee for deciding will the caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste
claim and is not an essential part in the process of the
determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in
every case.”
4. It may be seen from the above that this Court has
categorically ruled that only when the Scrutiny Committee
after holding an inquiry is not satisfied with the material
produced by applicant/claimant (like the appellants), the
case can be referred to the Vigilance Cell. For doing so, the
Scrutiny Committee is obligated to record brief reasons in
LSP 4 907 wp 5029.06.doc
support of the conclusion that it was not satisfied with the
material produced by the applicant. The occasion for
holding a further fact-finding inquiry by the Vigilance Cell,
would arise only when preliminary test prescribed for the
Screening Committee has been met with.
5. In light of the cited decision, we are satisfied that all
these cases require a fresh consideration at the hands of the
High Court, especially to determine whether the procedure
adopted by the Scrutiny Committee, the consequential
further inquiry, if any, by the Vigilance Cell, and the final
conclusion arrived by the Scrutiny Committee are in
consonance with the parameters laid down by this Court.
These appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed, the
judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside, and
the cases are remanded to the High Court. The Writ
Petitions filed by the appellants/claimants shall stand
revived for being heard and decided afresh.
6. It is clarified that the questions of law, which are not
answered by the above-cited judgment, as well as other
subsequent decisions of this Court, are kept open, and the
parties will be at liberty to raise all their contentions before
the High Court. It also goes without saying that in this
renewed consideration, the parties may rely upon
additional documents, if any, and the High Court may
accord them an opportunity for the same.”
LSP 5 907 wp 5029.06.doc
4. The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to the Thakar
Scheduled tribe is invalidated. The learned counsel submitted that
during the pendency of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
as many as 4 close blood relatives of the Petitioner from the paternal
side have been issued with the certificate of validity as belonging to
Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Our attention is invited to Page-7 of the
compilation which has been tendered today to demonstrate that a
certificate of validity has been granted in favour of Dattguru Bhikaji
Masage on 14th August 2019 as belonging to ‘Thakar Scheduled
Tribe’. Dattaguru is a blood brother of the Petitioner. It is important
to note the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o
Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1 and others1 . Paragraph No.4 of which reads thus:
“4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view
that the petitioner’s caste claim that she belongs to
Kanjar Bhat-Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted
by the Committee merely on the basis that identical caste
claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has
been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the
Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the
guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are
sound and based on sound principles. It would indeed
be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by blood is
established or not doubted, and one such relative has
been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is
1 2010 (6) Mh.L.J.
LSP 6 907 wp 5029.06.doc
no reason why public time or money should be spent in
the committee testing the same evidence and making the
same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds
on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such
relation has been obtained by fraud.”
In view of above observations, we would not have otherwise
hesitated to issue direction to the Committee to issue the certificate
of validity to the Petitioner as well. However, the family tree which
the Petitioner relies upon at Page-9 of the paper-book is produced in
this Court for the first time, which needs to be verified in the first
instance by the Scrutiny Committee.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat
Saurakshan Samiti v/s. State of Maharashtra2 held that affinity test is
not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in
the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe
claim in every case.
6. In Maharashtra Adiwasi (supra), the following three essential
prerequisites for granting caste validity certificates were outlined by
Their Lordships at the paragraph 24:
(i) The applicant must establish a clear and specific
relationship with the person in whose favour the validity
certificate has been issued;
(ii)The Scrutiny Committee must verify whether the
2 (2023) 16 SCC 415
LSP 7 907 wp 5029.06.doc
validity certificate was granted to the applicant’s blood
relative after due enquiry and in accordance with
prescribed procedure; and
(iii) The Scrutiny Committee must ascertain the
genuineness of the validity certificate relied upon.
7. We find that it is submission of learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the certificate of validity in favour of Petitioner’s
blood brother Dattaguru and other blood relatives is issued after
holding a due enquiry. If the Petitioner is in a position to
demonstrate before the Committee that Dattaguru is her blood
brother, then obviously the Committee is bound to issue a certificate
of validity in her favour.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requested that the matter
be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration on
the basis of the aforementioned grounds. It is for this reason that we
are inclined to remit the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for a
fresh consideration to verify this aspect.
9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside for deciding the
claim afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations.
10. The Petitioner to appear before the Committee on 22 nd
January 2026 at 11.00 a.m.. The Petitioner is at liberty to file
additional documents and additional affidavits in support of her caste
claim. As the scope of enquiry is quite limited, the Committee to
LSP 8 907 wp 5029.06.doc
decide the caste claim expeditiously and in any case within a period
of 8 weeks from 22nd January 2026. The Committee to decide the
caste claim without being influenced by the observations made in the
impugned order which is set aside. The Petitioner to co-operate with
the Committee and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournment.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(S.M.MODAK,J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)
Checking your session…