Bombay High Court directs issuance of Thakur Scheduled Tribe validity certificate after quashing scrutiny committee order

A Division Bench of Justices R. I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna heard a writ petition challenging an order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, which had invalidated a woman’s claim to belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The petition arose after this Court had earlier remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court authority and the Committee again denied the petitioner’s claim following a vigilance-cell inquiry.

The Court partly allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 8 November 2024 and directed the Committee to issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner for the Thakur Scheduled Tribe within 30 days. The Bench observed that the Supreme Court had held that the scrutiny committee need not “mechanically refer the case to the vigilance cell” in every matter concerning the Thakur tribe, and emphasised that a validity certificate granted to a lawful blood relative could be determinative. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the above context, the Supreme Court in the decision of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (Supra) has in paragraph 23 categorically observed that on the basis of the report of the vigilance cell, if the scrutiny committee is satisfied that the person in whose favour the caste validity certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the Applicant and lawful inquiry has been conducted before issuing the validity certificate, the scrutiny committee will have to issue the validity certificate. This would be dehors to the fact that the Applicant does not satisfy the affinity test. In this regard, the Supreme Court illustrated that if it is established that the father or grandfather of the Applicant has been given a caste validity certificate after holding a lawful inquiry, the caste scrutiny committee cannot hold that the grandfather or father of the Applicant as the case may be, belongs to the Scheduled Tribe but the Applicant does not belong Scheduled Tribe. It is only in the event if the relationship as pleaded by the Applicant is not established, the other evidence put forth by the Applicant, and the result of the affinity test then can be considered or taken into account by the scrutiny committee. Such eventuality does not arise in the given facts and circumstances.”

Background The petitioner, Smt. Shilpa Jay Wagh (also known as Kum. Pushpa Panduranga Thakur), obtained a caste certificate in 1991 certifying her as Thakur — Scheduled Tribe and secured employment as a Junior Clerk with Nashik Municipal Corporation in 1999. In 2011 the Corporation referred her certificate for verification to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. The Committee invalidated her claim by an order dated 5 July 2019 on the ground that she had failed to establish socio-cultural affinity with the tribe. This Court allowed a challenge to that order in Writ Petition No. 8036 of 2019 (judgment dated 24 January 2024) and remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra.

On remand the Committee again invalidated the petitioner’s claim by order dated 8 November 2024, noting concerns raised by show-cause notices issued against the petitioner’s biological brother who had been earlier granted a validity certificate in 2001. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Supreme Court authority and subsequent coordinate decisions of this Court to contend that where a lawful inquiry had led to issuance of a validity certificate to a paternal blood relative, the Committee need not conduct a fresh vigilance inquiry and should extend the same benefit. The State contended that doubts about the brother’s certificate and pending show-cause proceedings justified denial.

The Bench reviewed Supreme Court and appellate authority, observing that “while examining claim in regard to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, it is not necessary that in every case the scrutiny committee should send the case to the vigilance cell.” The Court found that the brother’s validity certificate dated 2001 formed a material basis for the petitioner’s claim and that mere issuance of show-cause notices against that relative did not automatically defeat the petitioner’s entitlement. The Court quashed the impugned order, directed issuance of the caste validity certificate within 30 days and granted liberty to the Committee to reopen the petitioner’s case if any of the validity-holders on whom she relied were subsequently invalidated in reopened proceedings; any consequences arising from such invalidation would apply to the petitioner as well. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 18841 OF 2024 Case Title: Smt. Shilpa Jay Wagh @ Kum. Pushpa Panduranga Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Adv. R.K. Mendadkar For the Respondent(s): Adv. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP; Adv. S.H. Kankal, AGP