Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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