Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

Supreme Court Clarifies Quasi-Judicial Function and Affinity Test in Caste Scrutiny Committee's Decisions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has provided important clarifications regarding the quasi-judicial function of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the relevance of the affinity test in verifying caste claims. The Court emphasized that the Scrutiny Committee, established under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, possesses characteristics of a quasi-judicial authority. It is entrusted with powers akin to a civil court and its decisions are subject to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that the Scrutiny Committee is not merely an administrative body but rather performs quasi-judicial functions. It is expected to conduct a thorough examination of facts, including verifying documentary evidence and conducting an affinity test, to ascertain the correctness of caste claims. The affinity test, which examines anthropological and ethnological traits, should not be considered a conclusive or mandatory test in every case. The Court held that the affinity test, when conducted by the Vigilance Cell, must be considered alongside other probative evidence by the Scrutiny Committee in determining the validity of the caste claim.

The judgment clarified the conditions for referring a case to the Vigilance Cell. The Scrutiny Committee may refer a case to the Vigilance Cell for further inquiry only if it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. The Committee must provide brief reasons for such referral. However, if the Committee is satisfied with the material presented, it is mandated to grant validity to the caste certificate. The Court emphasized that the affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell only after the case has been referred to it and is not the sole criteria for rejecting a claim.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, writing the judgment, stated, "The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal but an administrative body which verifies the facts...However, the Scrutiny Committee has all the trappings of a quasi-judicial authority." The Court further added, "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."

The Supreme Court's ruling brings much-needed clarity to the functioning of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the significance of the affinity test in validating caste claims. It strikes a balance between the need for verification and the avoidance of undue hardship for genuine claimants. The judgment provides a framework for the Scrutiny Committee's decision-making process and ensures fairness in determining caste validity certificates.

D.D-24.Mar.23

MAH. ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT SWARAKSHAN SAMITI   vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.   

Latest Legal News