Pre‑Independence School Record Carries Greater Probative Value; Caste Certificate Directed Within Six Weeks

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by a candidate whose Scheduled Tribe (Koli Mahadev) certificates were invalidated by a Scrutiny Committee and upheld by the Bombay High Court, challenging the rejection of documentary and familial records supporting his tribal claim.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed issuance of a caste validity certificate. The bench held that greater probative value attached to pre‑Independence documents and that the affinity test could not be treated as a conclusive litmus test. The Court noted that the disputed 1943 school admission entry for the appellant’s grandfather showed the words “Koli Mahadev” in the same ink and handwriting, finding “no scope for interpolation.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is manifest from the aforeextracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim: (i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre‑Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post‑Independence documents... (ii) While applying the affinity test... a cautious approach has to be adopted... the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.” The Court therefore directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue the certificate within six weeks.

Background

The dispute arose when the appellant, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, sought validation of his Scheduled Tribe certificate for Koli Mahadev to secure medical admission after qualifying NEET‑UG. He produced a school admission and leaving extract dated 10 October 1943 for his grandfather, Jalba Malba Makalwad, and subsequent school records of his father and uncle recording the caste as Koli Mahadev. During pendency of the writ petition in the Bombay High Court, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, invalidated and impounded the caste certificates of the appellant and his father by order dated 24 June 2019, citing doubts about the authenticity of documents and an inconclusive handwriting opinion, and noting failure on the affinity test because the appellant could not depose to customary tribal traits before the Committee.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 23 July 2024, treating the school records of relatives as not sufficiently reliable to sustain the claim. On appeal, this Court relied on precedents including Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra to reiterate that pre‑Independence documents merit greater probative weight and that the affinity test cannot be the sole criterion. The Court observed that the disputed 1943 entry appeared to be in the same ink and handwriting, and that disbelieving the pre‑Independence document on presumptions was not permissible. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court and Scrutiny Committee orders, declared that the appellant belonged to the Koli Mahadev tribe, and directed issuance of a caste validity certificate within six weeks. Any pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 964 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27410 of 2024) Case Title: Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Uday Bhaskar Dube, learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Shrirang B. Varma and Shri Varad Kilor, learned counsel for the State