REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2502 OF 2022
MAH. ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT 
SWARAKSHAN SAMITI             …APPELLANT(S)
 
        v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.         ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2772 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.     2536­2537   OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2533 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2532 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2534 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2518 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2517 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2525 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2520 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2527 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2538 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2541 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2535 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2546 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3922­3923 OF 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2544­2545 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2512 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2543 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2542 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2529 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2540 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2539 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2503 OF 2022
1

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2514 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2519 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2524 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2510 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2506 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2509 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2508 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2507 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8603 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8605 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2504 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2505 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2511 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2530 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2522 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2516 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2521 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2531 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2523 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2528 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2513 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9335 OF 2013
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2515 OF 2022
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
PRELUDE
1. Pursuant   to   Article   342   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   a   list   of
Scheduled   Tribes   was   notified   by   the   Constitution   (Scheduled
Tribes)   Order,   1950   (for   short   ‘the   ST   Order’).   By   an   Act   of
2

Parliament of 1976, the ST Order was amended. Part IX of the Third
Schedule to the 1976 Act contains a list of notified Scheduled Tribes
for   the   State   of   Maharashtra.   At   Entry   no.44   in   the   Maharashtra
List, the following castes have been notified as Scheduled Tribes:­
“Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur, 
Ma Thakar”.
2. Various issues concerning the procedure to be followed for the
determination of caste claims arose in a large number of cases.   In
the   case   of   Kumari   Madhuri   Patil   and   Another   v.
Addl.Commissioner,   Tribal   Development   &   Others 1
,   this   Court
noted that it was necessary to streamline the procedure for issuance
of   social   status   certificates,   their   scrutiny   and   their   approval.   The
need   to   lay   down   procedural   guidelines   was   felt   as   several   cases
were   noticed   where   candidates   on   the   basis   of   false   social   status
certificates   obtained   admissions   to   educational   institutions   which
necessarily   had   the   effect   of   depriving   admissions   to   genuine
candidates   belonging   to   Scheduled   Castes   or   Scheduled   Tribes.
There was no law in force at that time laying down the procedure for
1   (1994) 6 SCC 241
3

the   verification   of   caste   status.     Therefore,   very   exhaustive
guidelines were laid down in paragraph 13 of the said decision.  The
relevant part of Paragraph 13 of the said decision reads thus:
“13.   The   admission   wrongly   gained   or
appointment   wrongly   obtained   on   the   basis   of
false   social   status   certificate   necessarily   has   the
effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes
or   Scheduled   Tribes   or   OBC   candidates   as
enjoined   in   the   Constitution   of   the   benefits
conferred   on   them   by   the   Constitution.   The
genuine candidates are also denied admission to
educational institutions or appointments to office
or   posts   under   a   State   for   want   of   social   status
certificate.   The   ineligible   or   spurious   persons
who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics
and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries
by   the   Scrutiny   Committee.   It   is   true   that   the
applications   for   admission   to   educational
institutions are generally made by a parent, since
on   that   date   many   a   time   the   student   may   be   a
minor. It is the parent or  the guardian who may
play   fraud   claiming   false   status   certificate.   It   is,
therefore,   necessary   that   the   certificates   issued
are   scrutinised   at   the   earliest   and   with   utmost
expedition   and   promptitude.   For   that   purpose,
it is necessary to streamline the procedure for
the issuance of social status certificates, their
scrutiny and their approval, which may be the
following :
1.   The   application   for   grant   of   social   status
certificate   shall   be   made   to   the   Revenue   Sub­
Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy
Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued
4

by   such   officer   rather   than   at   the   Officer,   Taluk
or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the
case   may   be,   shall   file   an   affidavit   duly   sworn
and   attested   by   a   competent   gazetted   officer   or
non­gazetted   officer   with   particulars   of   castes
and sub­castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or
groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place
from   which   he   originally   hails   from   and   other
particulars   as   may   be   prescribed   by   the
Directorate concerned.
3 .   Application   for   verification   of   the   caste
certificate   by   the   Scrutiny   Committee   shall   be
filed   at   least   six   months   in   advance   before
seeking admission into educational institution or
an appointment to a post.
4.   All   the   State   Governments   shall   constitute   a
Committee   of   three   officers,   namely,   (I)   an
Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high­
er   in   rank   of   the   Director   of   the   department
concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal
Welfare/Backward   Class   Welfare,   as   the   case
may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes
another   officer   who   has   intimate   knowledge   in
the verification and issuance of the social status
certificates.   In   the   case   of   the   Scheduled   Tribes,
the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge
in   identifying   the   tribes,   tribal   communities,
parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5.   Each   Directorate   should   constitute   a
Vigilance   Cell   consisting   of   Senior   Deputy
Superintendent   of   Police   in   over­all   charge
and   such   number   of   Police   Inspectors   to
5

investigate   into   the   social   status   claims.   The
Inspector would go to the local place of residence
and original place from which the candidate hails
and usually resides or in case of migration to the
town   or   city,   the   place   from   which   he   originally
hailed   from.   The   vigilance   officer   should
personally   verify   and   collect   all   the   facts   of   the
social   status   claimed   by   the   candidate   or   the
parent   or   guardian,   as   the   case   may   be.   He
should   also   examine   the   school   records,   birth
registration, if any .   He should also examine the
parent,   guardian   or   the   candidate   in   relation
to  their   caste   etc.   or  such   other  persons  who
have   knowledge   of   the   social   status   of   the
candidate   and   then   submit   a   report   to   the
Directorate   together   with   all   particulars   as
envisaged   in   the   pro   forma,   in   particular,   of
the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,
rituals,   customs,   mode   of   marriage,   death
ceremonies,   method   of   burial   of   dead   bodies
etc.   by   the   castes   or   tribes   or   tribal
communities concerned etc.
6.   The   Director   concerned,   on   receipt   of   the
report   from   the   vigilance   officer   if   he   found   the
claim   for   social   status   to   be   “not   genuine”   or
‘doubtful’   or   spurious   or   falsely   or   wrongly
claimed,   the   Director   concerned   should   issue
show­cause notice supplying a copy of the report
of   the   vigilance   officer   to   the   candidate   by   a
registered   post   with   acknowledgement   due   or
through   the   head   of   the   educational   institution
concerned  in  which   the  candidate  is  studying  or
employed.   The   notice   should   indicate   that   the
representation   or   reply,   if   any,   would   be   made
within   two   weeks   from   the   date   of   the   receipt   of
6

the   notice   and   in   no   case   on   request   not   more
than   30   days   from   the   date   of   the   receipt   of   the
notice.   In   case,   the   candidate   seeks   for   an
opportunity   of   hearing   and   claims   an   inquiry   to
be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of
such   representation/reply   shall   convene   the
committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as
Chairperson   who   shall   give   reasonable
opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to
adduce   all   evidence   in   support   of   their   claim.   A
public   notice   by   beat   of   drum   or   any   other
convenient mode may be published in the village
or   locality   and   if   any   person   or   association
opposes  such   a  claim,  an  opportunity   to  adduce
evidence   may   be   given   to   him/it.   After   giving
such   opportunity   either   in   person   or   through
counsel,   the   Committee   may   make   such   inquiry
as   it   deems   expedient   and   consider   the   claims
vis­à­vis the objections raised by the candidate or
opponent   and   pass   an   appropriate   order   with
brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate
and   found   to   be   genuine   and   true,   no   further
action   need   be   taken   except   where   the   report   or
the particulars given are procured or found to be
false   or   fraudulently   obtained   and   in   the   latter
event the same procedure as is envisaged in para
6 be followed.
8.   Notice   contemplated   in   para   6   should   be
issued   to   the   parents/guardian   also   in   case
candidate   is   minor   to   appear   before   the
Committee   with   all   evidence   in   his   or   their
support   of   the   claim   for   the   social   status
certificates.
9. ……………….
7

10. ……………..
11.   The   order   passed   by   the   Committee   shall   be
final   and   conclusive   only   subject   to   the
proceedings   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other
authority should lie.”
(emphasis added)
3. The   aforesaid   guidelines   were   formulated   obviously   in   the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution as this
Court found that there was no legislation operating in the field.   So
far   as   the   State   of   Maharashtra   is   concerned,   with   effect   from   18 th
October   2001,   the   Maharashtra   Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled
Tribes,   De­notified   Tribes,   (Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other
Backward   Classes   and   Special   Backward   Category   (Regulation   of
Issuance   and   Verification   of)   Caste   Certificate   Act,   2000   (for   short
‘the 2000 Act’) was brought into force.  The 2000 Act contains a very
elaborate   mechanism   for   regulating   the   issue   and   verification   of
caste   certificates   to   persons   belonging   to   various   categories   of
backward   classes.     A   two­level   mechanism   was   provided.   The   first
level is of the Competent Authority issuing a caste certificate which
8

is valid only subject to verification and grant of validity certificate by
the   Scrutiny   Committee   constituted   under   the   2000   Act.   Power   is
vested   in   the   Scrutiny   Committee   constituted   under   Section   6   to
verify   the   correctness   of   the   caste   certificates   issued   by   the
Competent   Authority.     Section   9   confers   powers   on   the   Competent
Authority and the Scrutiny Committee of a civil court of summoning
and   enforcing   the   attendance   of   witnesses,   requiring   the   discovery
and   inspection   of   documents,   receiving   evidence   on   affidavits,
requisitioning any public record or a copy thereof from any Court or
office and issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses or
production   of  documents.     Rule­making   power   under   the   2000   Act
was   exercised   by   framing   the   Maharashtra   Scheduled   Tribes
(Regulation   of   Issuance   and   verification   of)   Certificate   Rules,   2003
(for   short   “the   ST   Rules”).       Similarly,   the   Maharashtra   Scheduled
Castes,   De­notified   Tribes,   (Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other
Backward   Classes   and   Special   Backward   Category   (Regulation   of
Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short
‘the   SC   Rules’)   were   framed.     Elaborate   provisions   for   the
constitution   of  the  Scrutiny  Committee  as  well  as the  procedure to
9

be   followed   by   the   Competent   Authority,   and   the   Scrutiny
Committee   have   been   laid   down   by   the   Rules   applicable   to   both
categories.   Rule   10   and   Rule   12   of   the   ST   Rules   provide   for   the
constitution of Vigilance Cells to assist the Scrutiny Committees for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively for conducting
an enquiry.   The Vigilance Cell established under ST Rules consists
of   a   Senior   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Police,   Police   Inspectors,
Police   Constables   to   assist   the   Police   Inspector   and   a   Research
Officer.   The   SC   Rules   specifically   provide   for   the   Vigilance   Cell   to
conduct affinity test.   There is some controversy about whether the
vigilance cell constituted under the ST Rules has a power to conduct
affinity test.   We are dealing with the said issue.   The Vigilance Cell
is required to enquire about anthropological and ethnological traits,
deities,   rituals,   customs,   mode   of   marriage,   death   ceremonies,
method   of   disposal   of   dead   bodies   etc.   by   the   castes   or   tribes   or
tribal   communities   concerned.     As   a   part   of   the   affinity   test,   a
candidate   who   has   obtained   a   caste   certificate   from   Competent
Authority is tested to ascertain whether he has knowledge about the
aforesaid factors pertaining to the particular caste/tribe.
10

CONTROVERSY
4. By   the   order   dated   24 th
  March   2022,   the   present   group   of
cases was referred to a larger Bench.  The challenge in the lead case
(Civil   Appeal   No.   2502   of   2022)   is   to   a   decision   of   a   Full   Bench   of
the   Bombay   High   Court   in   the   case   of   Shilpa   Vishnu   Thakur   v.
State  of  Maharashtra 2
.   The Full Bench of the  Bombay  High  Court
has interpreted the provisions of the 2000 Act as well as ST Rules.
The   impugned   judgment   discusses   and   lays   down   various
procedural  aspects  to   be  followed   by   the  Scrutiny   Committee.    The
Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the affinity test
is   an   integral   part   of   the   determination   of   the   correctness   of   the
caste   claim.     In   the   order   dated   24 th
  March   2022,   a   Bench   of   this
Court   noted   that   there   was   a   conflict   of   views   expressed   in   two
decisions   of   coordinate   Benches   of   this   Court.   The   first   case   is   of
Vijakumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 3
 and the second case is
of   Anand   v.   Committee   for   Scrutiny   and   Verification   of   Tribe
Claims   &   Ors. 4
.   In   paragraph   9   of   the   decision   in   the   case   of
2   2009 (3) Mh.LJ (F.B) 995
3   (2010) 14 SCC   489
4   (2012) 1 SCC 113
11

Vijakumar 3
,  this Court held that if a candidate fails the affinity test
at any stage, a caste validity certificate cannot be granted to him.  In
the case of   Anand 4
,   it was held that the affinity test is not the only
criteria for deciding a caste claim based on a caste certificate issued
by   a   Competent   Authority.   It   was   held   that   it   can   be   used   to
corroborate   the   documentary   evidence.   The   question   to   be   decided
is   whether   paramount   importance   should   be   given   to   the   affinity
test   while   adjudicating   upon   a   caste   claim   on   the   basis   of   a   caste
certificate   issued   by   a   Competent   Authority.     In   other   words,   the
question   is   whether   the   affinity   test   is   a   litmus   test   for   deciding   a
caste claim.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. Main submissions have been made on behalf of the appellants
in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 by Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned
senior   counsel.     He   has   taken   us   through   the   2000   Act   and   ST
Rules.     Relying   upon   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Kumari   Madhuri
Patil 1
,   he   urged   that   the   documents   which   pertain   to   the   pre­
Constitution   period   have   the   greatest   probative   value.   He   submits
12

that   if   such   documents   in   support   of   caste   claim   are   presented
before   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   and   if   the   same   are   found   to   be
relevant   and   genuine,   there   is   no   occasion   for   the   Scrutiny
Committee to order an enquiry through Vigilance Cell.   Similarly, if
blood   relatives   of   the   person   applying   for   verification   before   the
Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   have   been   granted   caste   validity
certificates, no further enquiry by the Scrutiny Committee is called
for.  In both cases, it is the duty of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to
validate the caste certificate.   He invited our attention to Rule 12 of
the   ST   Rules   which   lays   down   the   procedure   to   be   followed   by   the
Scrutiny Committee. He pointed out that sub­rule (2) provides that
only   if   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   satisfied   with   the   documentary
evidence   produced   by   the   applicant,   it   can   order   enquiry   through
Vigilance   Cell.     He   pointed   out   that   the   question   of   the   conduct   of
the   affinity   test   arises   only   after   the   case   is   forwarded   to   the
Vigilance Cell after the Scrutiny Committee comes to the conclusion
that the documents produced by  the applicant are not sufficient to
prove   the   caste   claim.   He   submitted   that   the   Scrutiny   Committee
could   not   mechanically   refer   a   case   to   the   Vigilance   Cell   without
13

recording   satisfaction   that   the   documents   produced   by   the
applicant were not sufficient to validate the caste   claim. 
6. He   relied   upon   a   decision   of   the   Bombay   High   Court   in   the
case of   Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Committee 5
. He
submitted   that   if   an   applicant   successfully   establishes   his   caste
claim   on   the   basis   of   documents   relating   to   the   pre­Constitution
period   or   documents   having   probative   value   or   a   caste   validity
certificate granted to his blood relative, it is not necessary  to apply
the affinity test.   In short, his submission is that the affinity test is
not a litmus test.  He submitted that the view taken by this Court in
the   case   of   Anand 4
  is   based   on   the   interpretation   of   the   2000   Act
and the ST Rules. He pointed out that   Vijakumar’s 3
  case   has been
decided by this Court before the ST Rules came into force. He would
urge   that   there   are   no   reasons   recorded   in   the   decision   to   suggest
that   the   affinity   test   in   every   case   is   mandatory.     The   learned
counsel   pressed   into   service  a  decision   of   this  Court   in  the   case  of
District   Collector,   Satara   &   Anr.   v.   Mangesh   Nivrutti   Kashid 6
.
5   2010 (6) Mh.LJ page 401
6   (2019) 10 SCC 166
14

He   pointed   out   that   this   Court   clearly   stated   that   Vigilance   Cell’s
assistance  is not  required  to  be  taken  in  every  case but  only   when
the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   satisfied   with   the   documents
produced   by   the   applicant.     He   also   pointed   out   that   an   applicant
who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and who has been staying in
an   urban   area   may   not   be   conversant   with   the   traits,
characteristics, ceremonies, and deities of the tribe. Learned senior
counsel   also   relied   upon   a   decision   of   the   Bombay   High   Court   in
Writ   Petition   No.4198   of   2005   dated   1 st
  August   2018,   which   holds
that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of   Anand 4
, the
impugned   judgment   in   the   case   of   Shilpa   Vishnu   Thakur 2
  stands
impliedly overruled. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned
judgment calls for modification and it must be held that the affinity
test is not of paramount importance while deciding a caste claim in
accordance with the 2000 Act and the ST rules.
7. Smt.   V.   Mohna,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   in   a
connected   case   heavily   relied   upon   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Palghat   Jilla   Thandan   Samudhaya   Samrakshna   Samithi
15

&   Anr.   v.   State   of   Kerala 7
.     She   submitted   that   the   State
Government   or   Scrutiny   Committee   cannot   hold   any   enquiry   to
determine   whether   or   not   some   particular   community   falls   within
the   ST   order.     She   submitted   that   the   State   Government   cannot
make an effort to indirectly modify the Third Schedule under the ST
Order   as   the   modification   can   be   carried   out   only   in   accordance
with   Article   341   of   the   Constitution.   Her   submission   is   that   in   a
given   case   if   the   documents   having   probative   value   show   that   the
applicant belongs to the Thakur caste or belongs to any other caste
notified in the Third Schedule to the 1976 Act, there is no question
of holding any affinity test. 
8. Shri   Shyam   Divan,   the   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the State of Maharashtra pointed out that it is judicially recognised
that the surname Thakur is shared by both forward and backward
class communities.  He placed reliance on the decision in the case of
State of Maharashtra & Ors.   v.   Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar
&   Anr. 8
  He   pointed   out   that   even   in   the   impugned   judgment,   this
7   (1994) 1 SCC 359
8   (2007) 1 SCC 80
16

factual aspect has been elaborately dealt with.   He pointed out that
under   the   provisions   of   the   2000   Act,   an   inquiry   is   required   to   be
made   at   three   stages.   The   first   is   an   inquiry   by   a   Competent
Authority   for   ascertaining   the   genuineness   of   the   claim   of   the
applicant   on   the   basis   of   documents   produced   by   him.   If   prima
facie,   the   Competent   Authority   is   satisfied   with   the   documents,   it
has to issue a caste certificate which is subject to verification.   The
second stage is of domestic and school enquiry  to be conducted by
Vigilance Cell which will include an affinity test and the third stage
is of verification and scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee which is a
quasi­judicial authority. 
9. In the written submissions filed by him, he has contended that
even   if   validity   certificates   have   been   issued   by   the   Scrutiny
Committee   in   case   of   near   relatives   of   the   applicant,   the   Scrutiny
Committee   has   to   apply   an   affinity   test   as   an   integral   part   of   the
process   of   assessing   the   entire   evidence   again   to   ensure   that
illegality   is   not   perpetuated.   He   submitted   that   there   are   cases
where a validity certificate is issued to a near relative by mistake or
17

fraud   or   without   holding   an   enquiry   as   contemplated   by   law   or
without   recording   any   reasons.     A   submission   is   made   that   the
Scrutiny   Committee   can   also   go   into   the   question   whether   the
earlier   validity   certificate   has   been   issued   based   on   an   erroneous
order of the High Court.   The submission canvassed is what is held
in paragraph 22.1 in the decision in  Anand’s  case 4
 is erroneous.
10. It   is   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   State   Government   that   in   a
given case, the applicant may not be fully conversant with the traits,
religious   ceremonies   of   the   tribe   or   deities   etc.     Therefore,   the
Vigilance   Cell   is   required   to   examine   even   the   parents   of   the
applicant.     The   State   Government   urged   that   in   the   case   of
Scheduled Tribe Thakur, a  different  test  will  apply  as persons with
this surname belong even to forward classes.  Therefore, in the case
of the tribe claim of Thakur, pre­Constitution documents containing
the   candidate’s   surname   as   Thakur   are   of   no   consequence.
Therefore,   in   the   case   of   the   tribe   claim   of   Thakur,   an   affinity   test
has to be applied. The submission of the State is that the view taken
in the case of  Vijakumar 3
 is correct and necessary clarifications will
18

have to be issued regarding findings rendered in the case of  Anand 4
in paragraph 22.  
11. Shri Ravi K. Deshpande, the learned senior counsel appearing
in one of the connected matters urged that the Scrutiny Committee
constituted under the 2000 Act is not a quasi­judicial authority. He
submitted that in the case of   Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. 9
,
this   Court   held   that   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   a   quasi­judicial
authority   but it  is an  administrative  authority.   He also  urged that
the   decision   in   the   case   of   Dayaram 9
  has   been   followed   by   this
Court   in   the   case   of   J.   Chitra   v.   District   Collector   &   Chairman,
State   Level   Vigilance   Committee,   Tamil   Nadu   &   Ors . 10
    He
submitted that the finding of the High Court that the affinity test is
an   integral   part   of   an   enquiry   by   the   Scrutiny   Committee   has   no
legal   basis   at   all.     His   submission   is   that   Anand’s   case 4
  has   been
correctly decided and to that extent, the impugned judgment in the
case of  Shilpa Vishnu Thakur 2
 will have to be modified.  One of the
interveners   also   relied   upon   the   provisions   of   the   SC   Rules   and
9   (2012) 1 SCC 333
10   (2021) 9 SCC 811
19

submitted that though the same specifically empower  the Vigilance
Cell   to   conduct   affinity   tests,   such   a   provision   is   absent   in   the   ST
Rules.
OUR VIEW
12. We   have   already   made   a   reference   in   detail   to   the   directions
issued  by  this   Court  in   the  case of   Kumari   Madhuri   Patil 1
.   A  co­
ordinate   Bench   in   the   case   of   Dayaram 9
,   in   paragraph   35   of   its
decision, held that the directions issued by this Court in paragraph
13   of   Kumari   Madhuri   Patil’s   case 1
  were   issued   as   there   was   no
statute   governing   the   field   of   verification   of   caste   claims   of
Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes,   Nomadic   Tribes   and   Other
Backward Classes.  Therefore, it was held that the directions issued
in   the   case   of   Kumari   Madhuri   Patil 1
  would   apply   only   until
appropriate   legislation   is   enacted.   Hence,   after   the   2000   Act   came
into force, only the provisions of the said enactment will prevail. 
20

13. Therefore, we will have to interpret the provisions of the 2000
Act.  The 2000 Act came into force on 18 th
 October 2001.  As can be
noticed   from   the   title,   the   2000   Act   deals   with   the   regulation   of
issuance   and   verification   of   caste   certificates   in   respect   of   persons
belonging   to   Scheduled   Tribes,   De­notified   tribes,   Nomadic   Tribes,
Other   Backward   Classes   and   Special   Backward   Category.     Under
the   scheme   of   the   2000   Act,   an   application   for   the   grant   of   caste
certificates   is   to   be   made   to   the   Competent   Authority   as   defined
under Section 2(b).  The Competent Authority is mandated to follow
the procedure prescribed by the Rules. After following the procedure
prescribed,   if   the   Competent   Authority   is   satisfied   that   the   claim
made by the candidate is genuine, it can issue a caste certificate in
a   prescribed   form.     Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   4,   for   good   reasons,
specifically   provides   that   if   the   application   is   rejected,   the   reasons
for   the   rejection   must   be   recorded.     As   an   order   rejecting   the
application   for   the   grant   of   a   caste   certificate   is   made   appealable
under   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   5,   the   appellate   authority   should
have the benefit of the reasons for rejection.
21

14. Under Section 9, the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority
and   Scrutiny   Committee   have   been   granted   powers   of   Civil   Court
under   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   of   summoning   and
enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath,
requiring the discovery and production of any documents, receiving
evidence   on   affidavits,   requisitioning   any   public   record   or   copy
thereof   from   any   Court   or   office   and   issuing   commissions   for   the
examination   of   witnesses   or   documents.   However,   the   nature   and
extent of the inquiry which is required to be made by the Competent
Authority and by the Scrutiny Committee differ.   The 2000 Act has
introduced a two­tier system for the verification of caste claims.   In
view   of   the   express   language   used   by   sub­section   (2)   of   Section   4,
the   caste   certificate   issued   by   the   Competent   Authority   does   not
conclusively   establish   the   caste   claim   of   the   applicant.   The   person
to whom the caste certificate is granted by the Competent Authority
cannot claim that his caste status has been established.   The caste
certificate   issued   by   Competent   Authority   becomes   conclusive
evidence of the caste stated therein only after a detailed enquiry as
contemplated by the 2000 Act and rules framed thereunder is made
22

by   the   Scrutiny   Committee   and   the   certificate   is   validated.
Therefore, when an application made under Section 3 for the grant
of a caste certificate is considered by the Competent Authority, very
detailed   scrutiny   of   material   produced   by   the   applicant   is   not
contemplated.     What   is   contemplated   is   prima   facie   satisfaction   of
the   genuineness   of   the   caste   claim   and   on   the   basis   of   such
satisfaction   that   a   caste   certificate   as   contemplated   by   sub­section
(1) of Section 4 can be issued.   Therefore, sub­section (1) of Section
4 specifically requires the Competent Authority to record reasons for
rejecting   the   application   but   there   is   no   such   requirement
incorporated   of   giving   reasons   while   granting   a   caste   certificate.
However,   the   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   is   expected   to   record
reasons   both   for   validating   and   not   validating   the   caste   certificate.
Sub­rule (6) of Rule 4 of the ST Rules provides that the Competent
Authority shall verify the documents produced by the applicant with
the   original   documents   and   if   satisfied   with   the   correctness   of   the
information, documents and evidence furnished by the applicant, it
shall   issue   a   Scheduled   Tribe   certificate   within   15   days   from   the
date   of   receipt   of   the   application.     The   time   limit   fixed   under   the
23

said   Rule   is   also   a   pointer   which   suggests   that   the   enquiry   to   be
made   by   the   Competent   Authority   is   a   summary   enquiry   and   a
detailed enquiry is not contemplated.  The mandate of issuing caste
certificates within 15 days cannot be accomplished if the Competent
Authority is to hold a detailed enquiry on par with the one which is
required to be held by the Scrutiny Committee.  
15. The law contemplates very detailed scrutiny of the caste claim
by   the   Scrutiny   Committee.     If   both   the   Competent   Authority   and
the   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   were   to   make   the   same   degree   of
scrutiny   and   detailed   enquiry   into   caste   claims,   the   very   object   of
the two­tier scrutiny will be frustrated.     Section 8 provides that the
burden of proving a caste claim before the Competent Authority and
the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   on   the   applicant.   For   discharging   the
said   burden   before   the   Competent   Authority,   it   is   enough   if   the
applicant produces  prima facie  material to show that his caste claim
is genuine.   The burden put by Section 8 on the applicant to prove
his caste status before the Scrutiny Committee is much higher than
24

the burden which he is required to discharge before the Competent
Authority.  
16. Sub­section (1) of Section 10 contemplates that if an applicant,
on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority
obtains   any   benefit   such   as   employment   or   admission   to   an
educational institution, on cancellation of the caste certificate by the
Scrutiny   Committee,   the   admission   secured   to   the   educational
institution or employment is required to be cancelled forthwith. The
scheme of Section 10 is that applicant cannot hold on to any benefit
received   by   him   on   the   basis   of   a   caste   certificate   issued   by   the
Competent   Authority   which   is   subsequently   cancelled   by   the
Scrutiny Committee.  
17. Section 6 deals with the procedure to be followed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificates.  Sub­section
(4) of Section 6 lays down that the Scrutiny Committee shall follow
the procedure as laid down by the Rules framed under the 2000 Act.
Rule 4 of the ST Rules lays down the procedure to be followed by the
Competent   Authority.       We   must   note   that   under   Rule   10,   a
25

provision   has   been   made   for   constituting   a   Vigilance   Cell   to   assist
the   Scheduled   Tribes   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   in   conducting   an
enquiry.     As   noted   earlier,   the   Vigilance   Cell   consists   of   Police
Officers of three different ranks as provided therein and a Research
Officer.     Rule   11   provides   details   of   the   documents   the   applicant
must  submit  to  verify   the Scheduled Tribes certificate.  Sub­rules  2
and 3 of Rule 11 read thus: 
“11.(1)…………………….
   (2) The   applicant   shall   submit   the   following
documents   with   his   application   for
verification   of   his   Scheduled   Tribe
Certificate :—
(a) Original documents.—
(i) the   original   Scheduled   Tribe
Certificate   of   the   applicant   alongwith
one attested copy,
(ii) an affidavit in Form F;
(b) Documents   of   which,   only   attested
copies   are   to   be   submitted   in   respect   of
applicant—
(i) Primary   School   leaving
certificate.
(ii) An   extract   of   school   admission
register. 
(iii)   An extract of birth register.
26

(c) Documents in respect of father,—   
(i) An extract of birth register.
(ii) Primary school leaving certificate.
(iii) Extract of school admission 
register.
(iv) Scheduled Tribe Certificate.
(v) If   a   father   is   in   service,   the
extract of the pages of the service
record   (book)   which   contain
religion and tribe entry.
(vi) If   a   father   is   illiterate,   the
primary   school   leaving   certificate
of   the   real   elderly   blood   relatives
of   the   paternal   side   of   the
applicant   and   extract   of   school
admission register.
(d) Other documents,—
(i) Revenue   record   like,   birth
register,   extract   of   7/12,   Sale
Deed etc.
(ii) Any other relevant documents 
in support of his Scheduled 
Tribe claim.
(iii) Affidavits of the near relatives 
whose Validity Certificates are 
submitted in support of the 
Scheduled Tribe claim of the 
applicant.
27

(3) The   applicant   shall   submit   original
certificates   and   documents   for   verification
whenever   required   by   the   Scrutiny
Committee.”
18. Rule 12 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny
Committee.     It   contains   a   provision   regarding   forwarding   a   case   to
the Vigilance Cell to hold an enquiry.  Rule 12 reads thus: 
“12.   Procedure   to   be   followed   by   Scrutiny
Committee.
(1)   On   receipt   of   the   application,   the   Scrutiny
Committee   or   a   person   authorised   by   it   shall
scrutinise   the   application,   verify   the   information
and   documents   furnished   by   the   applicant,   and
shall   acknowledge   the   receipt   of   the   application.
The   Member   Secretary   shall   register   the
application, received for verification, in the­register
prescribed by the Chairman.
(2)   If   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   satisfied
with the documentary evidence produced by the
applicant the Scrutiny Committee shall forward
  the   applications   to   the   Vigilance   Cell   for
conducting the school, home and other enquiry.
(3) The   Vigilance   Officer   shall   go   to   the   local
place   of   residence   and   original   place   from
which the applicant hails and usually resides, or
in   case   of   migration,   to   the   town   or   city   or
place from which he originally hailed from.
28

(4) The   Vigilance   Officer   shall   personally   verify
and   collect   all   the   facts   about   the   social   status
claimed   by   the   applicant   or   his   parents   or   the
guardian, as the case may be.
(5) The   Vigilance   Cell   shall   also   examine   the
parents   or   guardian   or   the   applicant   for   the
purpose   of   verification   of   their   Tribe,   of   the
applicant.
(6)   After   completion   of   the   enquiry,   the   Vigilance
Cell   shall   submit   its   report   to   the   Scrutiny
Committee   who   will   in   turn   scrutinise   the   report
submitted by the Vigilance Cell.
(7) In   case   the   report   of   Vigilance   Cell   is   in   favour   of
the   applicant,   and   if   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is
satisfied that the claim of the applicant is genuine
and   true,   the   Scrutiny   Committee   may   issue   the
validity   certificate.   The   validity   certificate   shall   be
issued in Form G.
(8) If   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   on   the   basis   of   the
Vigilance   Cell   report   and   other   documents
available,   is   not   satisfied   about   the   claim   of   the
applicant, the Committee shall issue a show cause
notice   to   the   applicant   and   also   serve   a
copy   of   the   report   of   the   Vigilance   Officer   by
registered   post   with   acknowledgment   due.   A   copy
shall   also   be   sent   to   the   Head   of   the   Department
concerned,   if   necessary.   The   notice   shall   indicate
that  the representation  or  reply, if any, should be
made within fifteen days from the date of receipt of
the   notice   and   in   any   case   not   more   than   thirty
days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case
29

the   applicant   requests   for   adjournment   or
extension   of   the   time­limit,   reasonable   time,   may
be granted.
(9) (a)   After   personal   hearing   if   the   Scrutiny
Committee is satisfied regarding  the genuineness of
the   claim,   Validity   Certificate   shall   be   issued   in
Form G. 
(b)   After   personal   hearing,   if   the   Scrutiny
Committee   is   not   satisfied   about   the
genuineness of the claim and correctness of the
Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate,   it   shall   pass   an
order   of   cancellation   and   of   confiscation   of   the
Certificate   and   communicate   the   same   to   the
Competent   Authority   for   taking   necessary
entries in the register and for further necessary
action.   The   Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate   shall
then   be   stamped   as   "   cancelled   and
confiscated".
19. Sub­rule   (2)   of   Rule   12   clearly   provides   that   only   if   the
Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence
produced   by   the   applicant,   it   shall   forward   the   application   to   the
Vigilance   Cell   for   conducting   the   school,   home   and   other   enquiry.
Therefore,   in   every   case,   as   a   matter   of   routine,   the   Scrutiny
Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to Vigilance
Cell   for   conducting   an   enquiry.     When   sub­rule   (2)   of   Rule   12
30

contemplates   that   only   if   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   satisfied
with the documents produced by the applicant that the case should
be referred to Vigilance Cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee
is   required   to   pass   an   order   recording   brief   reasons   why   it   is   not
satisfied   with   the   documents   produced   by   the   applicant.     Before
referring   the   case   to   the   Vigilance   Cell,   application   of   mind   to   the
material   produced   by   the   applicant   is   required   and   therefore,   the
application   of   mind   must   be   reflected   in   the   order   sheets   of   the
Scrutiny Committee. 
20. It  is  not  possible  to   exhaustively   lay   down   in   which   cases   the
Scrutiny   Committee   must   refer   the   case   to   Vigilance   Cell.     One   of
the tests is as laid down in the case of   Kumari Madhuri Patil 1
.   It
lays   down   that   the   documents   of   the   pre­Constitution   period
showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the
highest   probative   value.     For   example,   if   an   applicant   is   able   to
produce   authentic   and   genuine   documents   of   the   pre­Constitution
period   showing   that   he   belongs   to   a   tribal   community,   there   is   no
reason   to   discard   his   claim   as   prior   to   1950,   there   were   no
31

reservations   provided   to   the   Tribes   included   in   the   ST   order.     In
such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all. 
21. In   the   impugned   judgment   in   Civil   Appeal   No.   2502   of   2022
( Shilpa Vishnu Thakur’s case 2
), the Full Bench of the Bombay High
Court has noted that people having the surname “Thakur” belong to
both   forward   castes   and   various   backward   castes.     Therefore,   the
Full   Bench   may   be   right   in   saying   that   in   every   case,   only   on   the
basis   of   the   surname   Thakur,   it   cannot   be   concluded   by   the
Scrutiny   Committee   that   the   applicant   belongs   to   Scheduled   Tribe
Thakur   notified  in   the  Entry  44  of   the   Maharashtra   list.     However,
we   must   note   that   in   the   case   of   a   person   having   the   surname
Thakur, there may   be  evidence  in the  form   of entry  of  the  name of
the caste as a Tribe or  Scheduled Tribe in the land records, school
or college records or any official records concerning the applicant or
his   ancestors.   Only   on   the   ground   that   the   persons   having   the
surname   Thakur   may   belong   to   a   forward   caste   as   well,   it   is   not
necessary   that   in   every   case,   the   Scrutiny   Committee   should   send
the   case   to   Vigilance   Cell.     It   all   depends   on   the   nature   of   the
documents  produced  before   the  Caste  Scrutiny   Committee  and   the
32

probative value of the documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim
regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee   in   every   case   should   not   mechanically   refer   the   case   to
the   Vigilance   Cell   for   conducting   an   enquiry   including   affinity   test.
The reference to the Vigilance Cell can be made only if the Scrutiny
Committee   is   not   satisfied   with   the   material   produced   by   the
applicant.
22. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found in
many   cases.     These   are   the   cases   where   the   applicant   relies   upon
caste   validity   certificates   issued   to   his   blood   relatives.     Obviously,
such   a   validity   certificate   has   to   be   issued   either   by   the   Scrutiny
Committee constituted  in  terms of the directions  issued in   Kumari
Madhuri Patil’s   case 1
 or constituted under the Rules framed under
the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny  Committee must
ascertain whether the certificate is genuine.  Secondly, the Scrutiny
Committee will have to decide whether the applicant has established
that  the  person  to  whom  the  validity   certificate relied  upon  by  him
has   been   issued   is   his   blood   relative.   For   that   purpose,   the
applicant must establish his precise and exact relationship with the
33

person to whom the validity certificate has been granted.  Moreover,
an enquiry will have to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether
the  validity  certificate  has  been   granted  to  the   blood  relative  of  the
applicant   by   the   concerned   Scrutiny   Committee   after   holding   due
enquiry   and   following   due   procedure.   Therefore,   if   the   Scrutiny
Committee has issued a validity certificate contemplated in terms of
the decision in the case of  Kumari Madhuri Patil 1
, the examination
will   be   whether   the   enquiry   contemplated   by   the   said   decision   has
been held.   If the certificate relied upon is issued after coming into
force of the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertain
whether   the   concerned   Scrutiny   Committee   had   followed   the
procedure   laid   down   therein   as   well   as   in   the   ST   Rules   or   the   SC
Rules,   as   the   case   may   be.   For   this   verification,   the   Scrutiny
Committee   can   exercise   powers   conferred   on   it   by   Section   9(d)   by
requisitioning   the   record   of   the   concerned   Caste   Scrutiny
Committee,   which   has   issued   the   validity   certificate   to   the   blood
relative   of   the   applicant.     If   the   record   has   been   destroyed,   the
Scrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has been
held on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by
34

which   caste   validity   has   been   granted   to   the   blood   relative   of   the
applicant.     If   it   is   established   that   the   validity   certificate   has   been
granted   without   holding   a   proper   inquiry   or   without   recording
reasons, obviously, the caste scrutiny committee cannot validate the
caste   certificate   only   on   the   basis   of   such   validity   certificate   of   the
blood relative. 
23. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee may  be satisfied that
the   caste   validity   certificate   relied   upon   by   the   applicant   has   been
issued after making a lawful enquiry.  But if the Scrutiny Committee
is of the view that the applicant has not clearly established that the
person   to   whom   caste   validity   certificate   produced   on   record   has
been granted is his blood relative, in terms of sub­rule (2) of Rule 12
of the ST Rules, the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to refer the
case   for   conducting   an   enquiry   through   Vigilance   Cell.     In   such   a
case,  the  Vigilance  Cell  can   be  directed  by  the  Scrutiny  Committee
to   conduct   an   enquiry   limited   to   the   relationship   claimed   by   the
applicant   with   the   person   in   whose   favour   the   caste   validity
certificate   has   been   issued.   If,   on   the   basis   of   the   report   of   the
Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that the person in
35

whose   favour   caste   validity   certificate   has   been   issued   is   a   blood
relative   of   the   applicant   and   lawful   enquiry   has   been   conducted
before   issuing   the   validity   certificate,   the   Scrutiny   Committee   will
have to issue validity certificate even if the applicant does not satisfy
the affinity  test.   For example, if it is established that the father  or
grandfather   of   the   applicant   has   been   given   a   caste   validity
certificate after holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with law, the
Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   cannot   hold   that   the   grandfather   or
father   of   the   applicant,   as   the   case   may   be,   belongs   to   Scheduled
Tribe but the applicant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Only if
the relationship as pleaded by the applicant is not established, the
other   evidence   produced   by   the   applicant   and   the   result   of   the
affinity   test   can   be   taken   into   consideration   by   the   Scrutiny
Committee. 
24. As   provided   in   sub­rule   (7)   of   Rule   12   of   the   ST   Rules,   the
Vigilance Cell’s report is not conclusive.  If on the basis of the report
of   the   Vigilance   Cell   and   other   evidence   on   record,   the   Scrutiny
Committee comes to a conclusion that the caste claim is genuine, a
caste validity certificate can be issued.  Only on the ground that the
36

report   of   vigilance   cell   is   in   favour   of   the   applicant,   validity
certificate   cannot   be   mechanically   granted   without   application   of
mind.  If the report of the Vigilance Cell is against the applicant, his
caste claim cannot be rejected only on the basis of the report of the
Vigilance Cell without providing a copy of the report to the applicant
and without giving him an opportunity of being heard on the report.
After giving an opportunity to the applicant to make submissions on
the report, the Scrutiny Committee may reject the caste claim.  In a
given   case,   the   Scrutiny   Committee   can   also   record   a   finding   that
the caste claim is genuine.  It all depends on the facts of each case.
AFFINITY TEST 
25. Now, we come to the controversy regarding the affinity test.  In
clause   (5)   of   Paragraph   13   of   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Kumari
Madhuri   Patil 1
  it   is   held   that   in   the   case   of   Scheduled   Tribes,   the
Vigilance   Cell   will   submit   a   report   as   regards   peculiar
anthropological   and   ethnological   traits,   deities,   rituals,   customs,
mode   of   marriage,   death   ceremonies,   methods   of   burial   of   dead
bodies   etc.   in   respect   of   the   particular   caste   or   tribe.     Such
particulars   ascertained   by   the   Vigilance   Cell   in   respect   of   a
37

particular   Scheduled   Tribe   are   very   relevant   for   the   conduct   of   the
affinity   test.     The   Vigilance   Cell,   while   conducting   an   affinity   test,
verifies   the   knowledge   of   the   applicant   about   deities   of   the
community,   customs,   rituals,   mode   of   marriage,   death   ceremonies
etc.   in   respect   of   that   particular   Scheduled   Tribe.     By   its   very
nature,   such   an   affinity   test   can   never   be   conclusive.     If   the
applicant has stayed in bigger urban areas along with his family for
decades or if his family has stayed in such urban areas for decades,
the   applicant   may   not   have   knowledge   of   the   aforesaid   facts.     It   is
true   that   the   Vigilance   Cell   can   also   question   the   parents   of   the
applicant.     But   in   a   given   case,   even   the   parents   may   be   unaware
for the reason that for several years they have been staying in bigger
urban   areas.     On   the   other   hand,   a   person   may   not   belong   to   the
particular   tribe,   but   he   may   have   a   good   knowledge   about   the
aforesaid   aspects.     Therefore,   Shri   Shekhar   Naphade,   the   learned
senior   counsel,   is   right   when   he   submitted   that   the   affinity   test
cannot   be   applied   as   a   litmus   test.     We   may   again   note   here   that
question   of   conduct   of   the   affinity   test   arises   only   in   those   cases
38

where   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   satisfied   with   the   material
produced by the applicant.
26. There   is   an   argument   made   that   as   far   as   SC   Rules   are
concerned,   clause   (d)   of   Rule   13   specifically   provides   for   Vigilance
Cell   conducting   an   affinity   test   and   there   is   no   such   pari   materia
provision in the ST Rules.  We are unable to accept this submission
as   sub­rule   (4)   of   Rule   12   of   the   ST   Rules   enjoins   the   vigilance
officer to collect facts about the social status of the applicant or his
parents, as the case may be.  Therefore, sub­rule (5) provides for the
examination   of   the   applicant   and   his   parents.     For   verification   of
social   status   as   contemplated   by   sub­rule   (4)   of   Rule   12   of   the   ST
Rules,   in   a   given   case,   affinity   test   can   be   resorted   to   by   the
Vigilance Cell.
WHETHER CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
PERFORMS QUASI­JUDICIAL FUNCTION
27. Before we go into the decisions in the cases of  Vijakumar 3
  and
Anand 4
,   we   need   to   deal   with   an   argument   made   by   one   of   the
interveners   that   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   a   quasi­judicial
authority.  The said submission is based on a decision of coordinate
39

Bench of this Court in the case of   Dayaram 9
.   In paragraph 35, the
decision in the case of  Dayaram 9
 holds thus: 
“35.   The   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   an
adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but
an   administrative   body   which   verifies   the   facts,
investigates   into   a   specific   claim   (of   caste   status)
and   ascertains   whether   the   caste/tribal   status
claimed   is   correct   or   not.   Like   any   other   decisions
of   administrative   authorities,   the   orders   of   the
Scrutiny   Committee   are   also   open   to   challenge   in
proceedings   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution.
Permitting   civil   suits   with   provisions   for   appeals
and   further   appeals   would   defeat   the   very   scheme
and  will  encourage  the  very   evils  which   this  Court
wanted   to   eradicate.   As   this   Court   found   that   a
large   number   of   seats   or   posts   reserved   for   the
Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   were
being   taken  away  by  bogus   candidates  claiming
to   belong   to   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled
Tribes,   this   Court   directed   the   constitution   of
such   Scrutiny   Committees,   to   provide   an
expeditious,   effective   and   efficacious   remedy,
in   the   absence   of   any   statute   or   a   legal
framework for proper verification of false claims
regarding   SCs/STs   status.   This   entire   scheme
in   Madhuri   Patil   [(1994)   6  SCC   241  :   1994   SCC
(L&S)   1349   :   (1994)   28   ATC   259]   will   only
continue   till   the   legislature   concerned   makes
an   appropriate   legislation   in   regard   to
verification   of   claims   for   caste   status   as   SC/ST
and   issue   of   caste   certificates,   or   in   regard   to
verification of caste certificates already obtained by
40

candidates   who   seek   the   benefit   of   reservation,
relying upon such caste certificates.” 
 
(emphasis added)
28. We   must   note   here   that   this   Court   was   dealing   in   the   said
decision   with   a   case   arising   from   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh
where   there   was   no   statute   in   existence   which   covered   the   field
occupied   by   Kumari   Madhuri   Patil’s   case 1
.     Therefore,   the
observations made in the said decision are in the context of powers
of the   Scrutiny Committee ordered to be created under the decision
in   the   case   of   Kumari   Madhuri   Patil 1
.     In   the   cases   of   Dayaram 9
and   Jay   Chitra 10
,   this   Court   has   not   dealt   with   the   2000   Act   or   a
similar   enactment   applicable   to   any   other   State.     On   a   conjoint
reading   of   the   2000   Act   as   well   as   ST   and   SC   Rules   framed
thereunder,   it   is   impossible   to   conclude   that   the   Scrutiny
Committee   discharges   only   administrative   functions.   The   Scrutiny
Committee   under   the   2000   Act   has   been   entrusted   with   various
powers   of  the   Civil  Court  under   the   Code  of   Civil  Procedure,  1908.
The   powers   include   a   power   to   enforce   the   attendance   of   any
witness,   to   receive   evidence   on   affidavits,   to   issue   commissions   for
41

the   examination  of   witnesses  or   documents   etc.  The  scheme  of   the
2000   Act   and   both   SC   and   ST   Rules   provides   for   the   Scrutiny
Committee holding an enquiry on the caste claim of the applicant, if
necessary,   after   examining   the   applicant   on   oath,   recording
evidence   of   witnesses   and   calling   for   documents   and   records   etc.
The   Scrutiny   Committee   is   expected   to   record   reasons   for   granting
and rejecting the prayer for issue of caste validity certificates. Thus,
the   Scrutiny   Committee   has   all   the   trappings   of   a   quasi­judicial
authority. 
DECISIONS   IN   THE   CASES   OF   VIJAKUMAR   &
ANAND
29. Now,   we   come   to   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Vijakumar 3
.     A
perusal   of   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Vijakumar 3
  shows   that   a
Bench of two Hon’ble Judges dealt with issue of a tribe claim arising
from   the   State   of   Maharashtra.     A   careful   perusal   of   the   decision
shows that there is not even a reference to the ST Rules in the said
decision.   The attention of the Court was not invited to sub­rule (2)
of   Rule   12,   which   lays   down   that   the   case   can   be   referred   to   the
Vigilance   Cell   only   if   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not   satisfied   with
the   material   produced   by   the   applicant.   Without   referring   to   the
42

provisions of the 2000 Act as well as SC and ST Rules, in paragraph
9 of  Vijakumar’s   case 3
, it is held that:­ 
“9.   Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties, we are of the considered opinion that there
is   hardly   any   merit   in   the   contentions   raised   on
behalf   of   the   appellant.   The   affinity   test   was
completed by the Vigilance Officer as well as by the
Scrutiny   Committee.   The   certificate   has   to   be
validated   only   after   it   proves   factually   and   legally
correct   at   the   two   stages;   firstly,   at   the   stage   of
issuance and secondly, at the stage of verification.
If   it   fails   the   affinity   test   at   either   of   these   stages,
the validity of the certificate cannot be sustained.”
Hence,   in   view   of   the   fact   that   the   2000   Act   and   Rules   were   not
considered, the decision in the case of  Vijakumar 3
 is certainly not a
binding   precedent   for   the   proposition   that   in   every   case,   the
Scrutiny   Committee  is required  to   take  recourse to  the  affinity  test
by referring the case to the Vigilance Cell.  
30. The   decision   in   the   case   of   Anand 4
  in   paragraphs   4   and   5
specifically   refers   to   Rule   11   and   12   (2)   of   the   ST   Rules.     In
paragraph 22, this Court held thus: 
“22.   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,
43

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   post­Independence
documents. In case the applicant is the first
generation   ever   to   attend   school,   the
availability   of   any   documentary   evidence
becomes   difficult,   but   that   ipso   facto   does
not   call   for   the   rejection   of   his   claim.   In
fact,   the   mere   fact   that   he   is   the   first
generation   ever   to   attend   school,   some
benefit   of   doubt   in   favour   of   the   applicant
may   be   given.   Needless   to   add   that   in   the
event   of   a   doubt   on   the   credibility   of   a
document,   its   veracity   has   to   be   tested   on
the   basis   of   oral   evidence,   for   which   an
opportunity   has   to   be   afforded   to   the
applicant;
( ii )   While   applying   the   affinity   test,
which   focuses   on   the   ethnological
connections   with   the   Scheduled   Tribe,   a
cautious   approach   has   to   be   adopted.   A
few   decades   ago,   when   the   tribes   were
somewhat   immune   to   the   cultural
development   happening   around   them,
the   affinity   test   could   serve   as   a
determinative   factor.   However,   with   the
44

migrations,   modernisation   and   contact
with   other   communities,   these
communities   tend   to   develop   and   adopt
new   traits   which   may   not   essentially
match   with   the   traditional
characteristics   of   the   tribe.   Hence,   the
affinity   test   may   not   be   regarded   as   a
litmus   test   for   establishing   the   link   of
the   applicant   with   a   Scheduled   Tribe.
Nevertheless,   the   claim   by   an   applicant
that he is a part of a Scheduled Tribe and
is   entitled   to   the   benefit   extended   to
that   tribe,   cannot   per   se   be   disregarded
on   the   ground   that   his   present   traits   do
not   match   his   tribe's   peculiar
anthropological   and   ethnological   traits,
deity,   rituals,   customs,   mode   of
marriage,   death   ceremonies,   method   of
burial   of   dead   bodies,   etc.   Thus,   the
affinity   test   may   be   used   to   corroborate
the   documentary   evidence   and   should
not   be   the   sole   criteria   to   reject   a
claim.”
(emphasis added)
We   have   recorded   similar   reasons   earlier   for   coming   to   the
conclusion   that   affinity   test   will   not   always   be   mandatory   and/or
conclusive.
31. Paragraph   19   of   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Anand 4
  reiterates
the   position   that   Vigilance   Cell   enquiry   can   be   ordered   only   when
45

the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the materials produced
by the applicant.  On this aspect, we may make useful reference to a
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   District   Collector,   Satara 6
.
This decision is penned down by one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)
which makes an in­depth analysis of the ST Rules and in particular,
Rule 12. In paragraph 9, this Court held thus: 
“9.  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
A   reading   of   the   aforesaid   Rules   shows   that
the   role   of   the   Vigilance   Cell   was   restricted
as   compared   to   the   role   envisaged
under   Madhuri   Patil   case   [ Madhuri
Patil   v.   Commr.,   Tribal   Development ,  (1994)   6
SCC   241   :   1994   SCC   (L&S)   1349]   ,
inasmuch as the assistance to be provided
to   the   Scrutiny   Committee   was   not   in
every   case,   but   only   if   the   Scrutiny
Committee   was   not   satisfied   with   the
documentary   evidence   produced   by   the
applicant.”
(emphasis added)
32. Therefore,   as   observed   earlier,   the   decision   in   the   case   of
Vijakumar 3
  cannot   be   read   as   a   binding   precedent   laying   down   a
legal   principle   that   in   every   case   of   verification   of   caste   claim,   the
Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   is   under   a   mandate   to   refer   the   case   to
the Vigilance Cell.  As under the scheme of ST Rules, affinity test is
46

to   be   conducted   by   the   Vigilance   Cell,   it   follows   that   question   of
conducting of affinity test will arise only when a case is made out for
referring the case to Vigilance Cell.  If  the  Scrutiny Committee, after
holding   an   enquiry   is   satisfied   with   the   material   produced   on
record,   without   referring   the   case   to   the   Vigilance   Cell,   the   Caste
Scrutiny   Committee   is   under   a   mandate   to   grant   validity   to   the
caste   certificate.     As   noted   earlier,   in   a   given   case,   the   Scrutiny
Committee   can   order   a   limited   inquiry   by   the   Vigilance   Cell.     For
example,   if   an   applicant   is   relying   upon   a   caste   validity   certificate
granted   to   his   blood   relative   and   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   after
finding   that   the   certificate   is   issued   after   due   inquiry   entertains   a
doubt about the relationship pleaded, it can direct the Vigilance Cell
to make inquiry only about the relationship.
33. Now   we   come   to   the   impugned   Judgment   in   Shilpa   Vishnu
Thakur’s case 2
.  The questions framed for consideration by the Full
Bench are in paragraph 4 which reads thus: 
“(i)   Should   the   paramount   consideration   in
determining   the   caste   claim   of   a   person   be
documentary   evidence   or,   as   the   Supreme
Court   held,   “anthropological   moorings   and
ethnological   kinship”;   and   is   the   “crucial
47

affinity test” relevant and germane for such a
decision?
(ii)(a) In cases where the documents produced
by   a   person   claiming   to   be   belonging   to   a
particular   caste   satisfy   the   requirement,   for
example,   in   the   case   of   “Thakur”,   if   all   the
documents produced/filed and relied upon by
a   candidate   denote   his   caste   as   “Thakur”
then,   without   validating   the   caste   claim   with
reference   to   the   “crucial   affinity   test”,   should
the caste claim be validated or not?
(b)   In   a   case   where   a   person   is   not   in
possession   of   any   document   to   meet   the
requirements   of   a   particular   caste   claim   can
the   claim   be   scrutinized   on   the   basis   of   the
“crucial affinity test”, and a validity certificate
be issued?
(c) Where a  person  who claims to  belong   to a
particular   caste   has   some   documents   in   his
favour   and/or   partially   satisfies   the   crucial
affinity   test,   can   the   claim   be   certified   and   is
the   candidate   entitled   to   his   caste   certificate
being validated?” *
34. The   conclusions   of   the   Full   Bench   have   been   recorded   in
paragraph 40.   In clause (i) of paragraph 40, the Full Bench of the
High Court records that under Rule 12(2), the Scrutiny Committee,
if it is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced, has to
forward the application to Vigilance Cell for holding a school, home
and other enquiry.   The Full Bench does not lay down that in every
case   where   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   dealing   with   a   Scheduled
48

Tribe   claim,   a   reference   must   be   made   to   the   Vigilance   Cell.     In
clause   (ii)   (a)   of   paragraph   40,   the   Full   Bench   records   that   the
Scrutiny   Committee   must   have   regard   to   the   entire   body   of
evidence, including on the question as to whether the applicant has
satisfied   the   affinity   test.   As   held   earlier,   the   question   of   taking
recourse   to   the   affinity   test   will   arise   only   if   the   case   is   referred   to
Vigilance Cell.  In fact, in clause (b) of paragraph 40, the Full Bench
holds   that   even   if   an   applicant   does   not   have   any   documentary
evidence   it   will   not   ipso   facto   result   into   invalidation   of   the   caste
claim.  The reason is that in such a case, sub­rule (2) of Rule 12 will
apply  and the  Vigilance Cell will  have to hold  an enquiry  including
affinity test.  Even in such a case, affinity test will not be conclusive
either  way  as  held  in  clause  (2)  of  paragraph  20  in   Anand’s   case 4
.
In   clause   (c)   of   the   same   paragraph,   the   Full   Bench   of   the   High
Court   also   holds   that   even   if   the   applicant   partially   satisfies   the
affinity   test,   depending   upon   the   nature   of   the   evidence   on   record,
the Scrutiny Committee has power to validate the claim.  Thus, even
clause   (c)   proceeds   on   the   footing   that   the   affinity   test   is   not
conclusive.
49

35. Reading   paragraph   40   of   the   impugned   judgment   as   a   whole,
we   cannot   conclude   that   a   finding   has   been   recorded   by   the   full
Bench   about   the   conclusive   nature   of   the   affinity   test.   The   finding
cannot   be   understood   to   mean   that   reference   to   the   Vigilance   Cell
and conduct of affinity test is mandatory in every case. However, we
make   it   clear   that   for   the   reasons   we   have   recorded   in   this
judgment,   we   do   not   approve   the   observation   in   the   impugned
judgment   that   “the   affinity   test   is   an   integral   part   of   the
determination of the correctness of the claim” 
CONCLUSIONS
36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only   when   the   Scrutiny   Committee   after   holding   an
enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the
applicant,   the   case   can   be   referred   to   Vigilance   Cell.
While   referring   the   case   to   Vigilance   Cell,   the   Scrutiny
Committee   must   record   brief   reasons   for   coming   to   the
conclusion   that   it   is   not   satisfied   with   the   material
produced   by   the   applicant.     Only   after   a   case   is   referred
50

to   the   Vigilance   Cell   for   making   enquiry,   an   occasion   for
the conduct of affinity test will arise.
(b) For   the   reasons   which   we   have   recorded,   affinity   test
cannot  be  conclusive either  way. When  an  affinity  test is
conducted   by   the   Vigilance   Cell,   the   result   of   the   test
along   with   all   other   material   on   record   having   probative
value   will   have   to   be   taken   into   consideration   by   the
Scrutiny   Committee   for   deciding   the   caste   validity   claim;
and
(c) In short, 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.
51

37. We   direct   the   Registry   to   place   the   appeals/SLPs   before   the
appropriate Bench for deciding the same in the light of the reference
answered by us.
………..…..…………………J.
            (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
..……..………………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
………..…..…………………J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi;
March 24, 2023.                                                                       
52