Audit Report Alone Is Not Proof of Loss: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects ₹2.54 Crore Insurance Claim Filed by Co-operative Bank for Employee Fraud Divisional Commissioner Has No Jurisdiction to Cancel Sale Permission Once Conveyance Is Complete: Bombay High Court Rules in Landmark Land Transfer Case Once Land Is Vested Under LDP Act, There Is No Lapse, No Going Back: Calcutta High Court Refuses Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 Act Courts Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage—Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning in SC/ST Act, IPC Case Involving Police Officer Liberty Cannot Override the Horrors of Lynching: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in Palghar Mob Killing Case Exorbitant Damages Without Proof Are Unsustainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes Down ₹3.84 Lakh Monthly Damage Order Against Industrial Occupant Mere Plea of Oral Partition Not Sufficient Without Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court Voluntary Abandonment of Infant Child Constitutes Cruelty; Father Retains Custody: Karnataka High Court Mere Delay Is No Ground To Quash Disciplinary Proceedings When Serious Financial Irregularities Are Alleged: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Charge-Sheet For Fraudulent Medical Claims Employer’s Insurance Cannot Offset Motor Accident Compensation: Delhi High Court Upholds Just Claims of Deceased’s Family Dying Declaration Must Inspire Confidence—Absence of Dowry Allegation Weakens Prosecution Narrative: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Proposed Accused Cannot Challenge FIR Direction: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision Against Magistrate’s Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC Delay in Impleading Legal Heirs No Ground to Dismiss Entire Revision: Supreme Court Restores Civil Revision, Condemns Overtechnical Approach Generalised Allegations Without Specifics Against In-Laws Are Not Enough To Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Case Conviction for Rape on Promise to Marry Quashed as Couple Marries: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Do Complete Justice Recruitment Process Initiated Under Valid Policy Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Due to Later Change in Committee Composition: Calcutta High Court Conviction for Theft of Public Electricity Infrastructure Upheld; Hostile Witnesses Won’t Dismantle Case Where Recovery Is Proven: Karnataka High Court

Pre-Independence Caste Records Trump Affinity Test — ‘Documentary Proof Cannot Be Disbelieved on Presumptions’: Supreme Court Upheld Caste Validity

13 August 2025 1:47 PM

By: sayum


“Migration and modernisation may erase traditional traits — Affinity test is not a litmus test”, Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment, setting aside the rejection of a Scheduled Tribe claim by both the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee and the Bombay High Court. The three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai with Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, ruled that credible pre-Independence documents hold greater probative value in caste verification and cannot be discarded merely on suspicion or assumptions.

The case revolved around the appellant’s claim of belonging to the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe. Central to his case was a 1943 Zilla Parishad school admission record of his grandfather, which recorded the caste as “Koli Mahadev”. The Committee had invalidated the claim, doubting the authenticity of the record and relying heavily on the fact that the appellant failed the affinity test. The High Court had upheld that view, describing the family’s school records as unreliable.

Chief Justice Gavai, examining the 1943 entry “with a magnifying glass”, concluded that “the words ‘Koli Mahadev’ are in the same ink and in the same handwriting. Therefore, there could be no scope for interpolation in the said entry.” The Court noted that the entry was further corroborated by the school records of the appellant’s father and uncle, both pre-dating any validation disputes.

In rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Bench relied on the principles in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, where it was held that “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.” The Court cautioned that the affinity test, while useful to corroborate documents, could no longer be regarded as decisive: “With migration, 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.”

The judgment reiterated that the absence of traditional customs, rituals, or ethnological traits cannot by itself disqualify a person from being recognised as a Scheduled Tribe member if credible documentary proof exists. Referring to its own recent decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasised: “The affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.”

Finding that the rejection of the appellant’s claim rested on “presumptions and assumptions” rather than legal proof, the Court quashed the orders of both the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee. It held: “In view of the pre-Independence document which certifies that the appellant’s grandfather belonged to the Koli Mahadev Tribe, greater probative value ought to have been given to the said document.”

The appeal was allowed, and the Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue the caste validity certificate within six weeks.

Date of Decision: 12 August 2025

Latest Legal News