Medical Report Missing Injured's Signature, Unexplained 9-Hour FIR Delay Fatal To Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Acquits Attempt To Murder Convicts Fresh Notice Mandatory To Ex-Parte Defendants If Plaint Is Substantively Amended: Madhya Pradesh High Court Divorce | Initial Bickering Between Spouses During Early Marriage Does Not Constitute Cruelty: Madras High Court Sports Council Cannot Dissolve Registered Society Or Conduct Its Elections; Can Only Withdraw Recognition: Kerala High Court Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail To Murder Accused Denied Medical Care In Jail Compliance Is Not Protection: Kerala High Court Holds Local Authority Cannot Deny Industrial License Merely Over Unscientific Public Protests Allotment Of Seat By Bypassing Higher-Ranked Candidates In Merit List Results In Gross Injustice: Calcutta High Court Dismisses LLM Admission Plea Blacklisting Not An Automatic Consequence Of Contract Termination, Requires Specific Show-Cause Notice: Supreme Court Power Of Attorney Cannot Operate As Mode Of Succession To Religious Office Of Sajjadanashin: Supreme Court Higher-Ranking Employees Cannot Claim Parity In Punishment With Subordinates Under Article 14: Supreme Court Waqf Board Lacks Jurisdiction To Appoint 'Sajjadanashin', Civil Court Can Decide Dispute As Office Is Distinct From 'Mutawalli': Supreme Court 144 BNSS | Husband Cannot Directly Challenge Ex-Parte Maintenance Order In High Court, Must Apply For Recall: Allahabad High Court No Absolute Bar On Relying Upon Post-Notification Sale Deeds For Determining Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court 138 NI Act | Plea That Cheque Was Stolen Is An Afterthought If No Police Complaint Is Lodged: Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Cannot Expect Claimant To Preserve Every Bill: P&H High Court Enhances Accident Compensation From Rs 95,000 To Rs 7.7 Lakhs

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