Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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