Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

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