Bombay High Court
SUMEET DATTATRAY PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The Court held that the Affinity Test is not a litmus test and, given the petitioner’s established blood relationship and prior certificates to his relatives, his caste claim is valid and the Scrutiny Committee must issue a certificate of validity.
Summary
The petitioner Satish Sangar challenged the cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe (Thakur) caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, arguing that the committee improperly required an "affinity test". The Supreme Court had earlier set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the affinity test is not a decisive factor in caste validity determinations. The High Court examined prior precedents, including a 2010 Maharashtra High Court decision and the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment, which held that the Scrutiny Committee must only refer a case to the Vigilance Cell after an unsatisfactory enquiry and that the affinity test is not essential. The court noted that the petitioner’s father and brother had already been granted valid certificates, establishing a clear blood relationship. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within six weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Affinity Test is a mandatory requirement for granting a Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificate.
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee complied with the procedural requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in referring cases to the Vigilance Cell.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a caste validity certificate based on the certificates already issued to his father and brother.
- Whether the High Court’s earlier order cancelling the petitioner’s caste claim should be set aside.
Subjects
- caste certificate
- Scheduled Tribe
- affinity test
- Scrutiny Committee
- validity certificate
- Supreme Court guidelines
- Maharashtra
Judgment
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7254 OF 2008
SATISH Sumeet Dattatray Pawar,
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR Age : 20 Years, Occupation : Nil,
Digitally signed by
Vasant Vaibhav, Nera Virupaksha Temple,
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR Shivaji Road, Old Panvel, Panvel,
Date: 2026.01.22
17:55:01 +0530 District : Raigad. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar
Division, Through its Deputy Director
and Member Secretary having its
Nandurbar.
3. Director,
V.J.T.I. Matunga, Mumbai : 400 019. ...Respondents
*****
Mr.Sahil Choudhari h/f Mr.Sushant Yeramvar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt.R.M.Shinde, AGP, for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.
Mr.Santosh Parad, Advocate for Respondent No.3 – BMC.
*****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 13th JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Satish Sangar 1/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
2. Learned Addl.G.P. opposed the Petition.
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 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 12 th 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 ensure to the said Scheduled Tribe. It may be
noticed that the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay (“High Court”) has, vide the
Satish Sangar 2/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
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 ‘Thakur’ 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:
“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
Satish Sangar 3/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
Committee for deciding 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 an 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 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 this 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 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,
Satish Sangar 4/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
partly allowed, the Judgement 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 judgement, 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.”
4. The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to “Thakur
Scheduled Tribe” has been invalidated by the Respondent No.2–
Scrutiny Committee. The impugned order proceeds on the footing that
the Petitioner has to prove the “Affinity Test”. It is well settled by now
that the “Affinity Test” is not a litmus test to prove the caste claim and
the same can be proved on the basis of other materials.
5. This Court, in the year 2010, in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale V/s.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others1 has
held thus at paragraph No.4:-
1 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401
Satish Sangar 5/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
“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 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.”
6. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Others2 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.
Thus, in Maharashtra Adiwasi (supra), the following three essential
prerequisites for granting caste validity certificates were outlined by
2 (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415
Satish Sangar 6/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
Their Lordships at the paragraph 24 of the judgment quoted above:
(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 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. During pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner’s father
Dattatray Gopinath Pawar has been issued with the Certificate of
Validity vide order dated 6th October 2021 by the Scrutiny Committee.
The Petitioner’s real brother Rohan Dattatray Pawar has also been
issued with the Certificate of Validity as belonging to “Thakur
Scheduled Tribe” by the order dated 27th November 2021.
8. There is no dispute that Dattatray Gopinath Pawar is the father
of the Petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that the
certificate of validity issued in favour of the Petitioner’s father is
granted without following the due procedure or without conducting
due enquiry.
Satish Sangar 7/8
911-WP-7254-2008.doc
9. The Petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside. The Petitioner’s caste claim stands validated.
The Respondent No.2 – Committee is directed to issue the certificate
of validity in favour of the Petitioner as belonging to “Thakur
Scheduled Tribe” within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
communication of this order.
10. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Satish Sangar 8/8
Checking your session…