Bombay High Court
ASHOK UTTAM SURYAWANSHIversusSCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Scrutiny Committee’s order invalidating the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe claim was perverse and must be set aside; the petitioner is entitled to a Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’ certificate.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Suryawanshi, sought recognition as a member of the Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’ and challenged the Scrutiny Committee’s order that invalidated his claim on the grounds of area restriction and failure to satisfy the affinity test. He produced pre‑independence school records of his father (1933) and brother showing the caste as ‘Thakur’, which the Committee disregarded. The High Court held that such oldest documents have high probative value and cannot be ignored, and that the affinity test cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a caste claim. Relying on earlier judgments (Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur, Lahu Dashrath Thakur, Anand v. Committee, and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat cases), the Court found the Committee’s order perverse. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the order quashed, and the Committee directed to issue a validity certificate for the petitioner as a member of the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee may reject a Scheduled Tribe claim solely on the basis of the affinity test and area restriction while ignoring pre‑independence documentary evidence.
- Whether pre‑independence records indicating the caste as ‘Thakur’ are sufficient to establish Scheduled Tribe status despite the existence of the same surname among forward castes.
- Whether the affinity test can be used as a sole criterion to invalidate a tribe claim.
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe
- Caste verification
- Affinity test
- Pre‑independence documents
- Thakur
- Tribe certificate
- Maharashtra
- Writ petition
- Quash order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:13169-DB
1 wp-696-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2022
Ashok s/o Uttam Suryawanshi
Age 58 years, Occu. Retired
R/o Chilane, Tq. Shindkheda,
Dist. Dhule …Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nandurbar Division,
Nandurbar
2. Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies (Audit)
Nashik Division Nashik
3. District Special Auditor,
Co-operative Societies
Dhule …Respondents
…
Mr. Umesh B. Gite h/f. Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh for the petitioner.
Ms. Chaitali R. Chaudhari-Kutti for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
…
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
Reserved on : 17.03.2026
Pronounced on : 27.03.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties
heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. By this Writ Petition the petitioner takes exception to the impugned
order dated 23.03.2021 passed by Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee
Narwade
2 wp-696-2022.odt
thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to
‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
in support of his tribe claim has submitted the following documents :-
Sr. Type of Name of Relation with Caste Date
No. Record recordholder applicant record
1. School Record Ashok Uttam Applicant Hindu 12.06.1968
Suryawanshi Thakur
2. School Record Uttam Dajbhau Father Thakur 20.04.1933
Thakur
3. School Record Shaligram Uttam Brother Hindu 15.06.1956
Thakur Thakur
5. He would further submit that even during the course of Vigilance
Cell Enquiry the Vigilance Cell found the following documents :-
Sr. School Name Name of Student Relation with Caste Admission
No. applicant Date
1. School Record Ashok Uttam Applicant Hindu 12.06.1968
Suryawanshi Thakur
2. School Record Uttam Dajbhau Father Thakur 20.04.1933
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submit that despite
the above documents pertaining to pre independence era were produced
before Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee, the Respondent No.1-
Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner on the
ground of area restrictions as well as failure of petitioner to satisfy the
affinity test. He, therefore urge that Respondent No.1-Scrutiny
Committee has committed an error in not considering the oldest
Narwade
3 wp-696-2022.odt
documents having probative value as well as harping on the affinity test.
In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied
on the judgement of this Court dated 25.02.2026 in Writ Petition
No.7472 of 2021 in the case of Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur Vs. Thge
State of Maharashtra and Ors. and other connected Writ Petitions.
7. Per contra, learned AGP though supports the findings arrived at by
Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee, however, she does not dispute the
legal position as has been enumerated in the judgement of Abasaheb s/o
Gulabrao Thakur (supra).
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned AGP, we find that the petitioner has relied on the school record of
his father namely, Uttam Dajbhau Thakur dated 20.04.1933 as well as
school record of his real brother, namely Shaligram Uttam Thakur dated
15.06.1956 showing their caste as ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. We find that
since the petitioner has produced on record the oldest document of pre
independence era pertaining to his father dated 20.04.1933 showing the
caste of his father as ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe, the Respondent No.1-
Scrutiny Committee could not have discarded the said document.
9. We are therefore of the considered view that Respondent No.1-
Scrutiny Committee could not have invalidated the tribe claim of the
petitioner ignoring the oldest documents merely on the ground of area
restriction as well as affinity test. This Court in the case of Abasaheb s/o
Gulabrao Thakur in that regard has made following observations :-
Narwade
4 wp-696-2022.odt
“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 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
Narwade
5 wp-696-2022.odt
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 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
Narwade
6 wp-696-2022.odt
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 :
“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
Narwade
7 wp-696-2022.odt
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
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.”
Narwade
8 wp-696-2022.odt
10. In the light of the above observations of this Court in the case of
Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur (supra), we find that the decision of the
Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim
of the petitioner on the ground of affinity test as well as area restriction
without considering the oldest documents which supports the case of the
petitioner, is perverse and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.
We, therefore, are inclined to allow this Writ Petition by passing the
following order :-
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order passed by Respondent No.1-
Scrutiny Committee dated 23.03.2021 thereby invalidating
the tribe claim of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set
aside.
iii. The respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee is hereby
directed to issue validity certificates to the petitioners of
belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe.
iv. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J.)
Narwade
Checking your session…