Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records

“Different Ink or Handwriting is Not Proof of Interpolation” – In a judgment that could have significant ramifications for tribal claimants in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court held that the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically discard pre-Constitutional documents on mere suspicion of interpolation without any legal or forensic basis. While allowing Kum. Bhumika D/o Ravindra Koli’s writ petition, the Court declared the Scrutiny Committee’s decision unsustainable and ordered it to issue a Scheduled Tribe validity certificate for 'Tokre Koli' within four weeks.

Delivering the judgment in Writ Petition No. 717 of 2021, a Division Bench of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Vaishali Patil–Jadhav came down heavily on the Committee’s reliance on a Vigilance Report, which claimed that certain pre-constitutional entries in school and birth registers—dating as far back as 1912—were interpolated. The Court scrutinized the original records and found no substantive tampering, stating emphatically:

“Different handwriting and different ink do not by themselves establish interpolation. These documents were authored by different officers over decades. Such variations are natural in public records maintained over a long period of time.”

“Burden Under Section 8 Stands Discharged When Ancestral Records Are Consistent”: Court Reiterates Sanctity of Pre-Independence Caste Entries

Rejecting the Committee’s claim that the documents were unreliable, the Court observed that “once consistent caste entries appear across generations and across decades, the initial burden under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Regulation of Verification) Act, 2000 is clearly discharged.” Referring to entries from 1912, 1915, 1930, and 1950 that referred to the petitioner’s ancestors as ‘Dhor Koli’, ‘Koli Dhor’, or ‘Tokre Koli’, the Court held: “It is apparent that the petitioner has discharged the burden as cast on her under Section 8 of the Act. The Committee failed to place any adverse evidence on record to rebut these entries.”

In doing so, the Court relied on the landmark judgment in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113, where the Supreme Court emphasized that pre-Independence documents carry superior probative value in caste verification matters.

“Tokre Koli and Dhor Koli Form a Single Entry Under Serial No. 28 of the ST List – No Justification to Treat Them as Inconsistent”

The High Court also firmly rejected the Committee’s reasoning that entries mentioning ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’ were inconsistent with the petitioner’s claim of being ‘Tokre Koli’. Citing its earlier decision in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench held: “When both ‘Dhor Koli’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ are part of the same Scheduled Tribe entry at Serial No. 28, they are legally recognized as belonging to the same group. A person does not gain any added benefit by being described as one or the other.”

The Court reminded the Committee that it was "not a question of mathematical counting of how many entries favour the claimant but of evaluating the overall probative value of documentary evidence.”

“Quasi-Judicial Bodies Must Apply Their Own Mind – Cannot Act as Mouthpieces of Vigilance Cell”

What drew the Court’s strongest criticism was the Committee’s blind reliance on the Vigilance Report. The Court found that the Committee had not verified the records, had not taken handwriting expert opinion, and had not even summoned the public officials who had custody of the documents. This, the Court said, amounted to a complete abdication of its quasi-judicial duties:

“The Committee is expected to be sensitive to the statutory scheme and discharge its obligation independently. Merely because the Vigilance Cell has given an opinion, that does not bind the Committee to reach the same conclusion.”

It further added: “The least that was expected of the Committee was to deal with the petitioner’s detailed reply and apply its own mind. Instead, it has acted solely on suspicion, without any legal or evidentiary foundation.”

“Affinity Test is Not a Litmus Test” – Failure of Anthropological Traits Alone Cannot Defeat a Strong Documentary Case

Addressing the Committee’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the basis of a failed affinity test, the Court reiterated what has now become settled law — that affinity tests are only corroborative and not determinative in cases where documentary evidence is otherwise strong. Relying on Anand (supra) and Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held: “Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not essential in every case. It must be read in conjunction with all other material.”

ST Certificate to Be Issued in Four Weeks

Allowing the petition, the Court unequivocally stated: “In our considered view, on the basis of the consistent entries dating back over a century, and in the absence of any expert opinion or proper verification, the Committee’s order is unsustainable in law.”

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29 November 2020 was quashed, and the Committee was directed to issue the Scheduled Tribe validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks of the order’s uploading.

The judgment is a reaffirmation of the principles of procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor, and constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes. It also stands as a warning to scrutiny committees across the state that suspicion, without legal proof, cannot override documentary consistency and historical authenticity.

Date of Decision: 4 December 2025