The Bombay High Court has held that when a close blood relative has been lawfully granted a Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificate, the same claim by a family member cannot be rejected without independent evidence of fraud. The Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue a caste certificate to the petitioner as a Thakar, Scheduled Tribe, within six weeks, recognizing the principle that repeated verification of identical claims among verified relatives is unnecessary and contrary to administrative efficiency and natural justice.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Bombay High Court held that when a close blood relative - here, the petitioner’s daughter - has been lawfully issued a Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificate after due procedure, the petitioner’s identical claim must be accepted unless fraud is established. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue the petitioner a caste certificate within six weeks.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Yogesh Vishnu Pawar, claimed membership in the Thakar, Scheduled Tribe. His application for a caste validity certificate was rejected by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner challenged this rejection before the Bombay High Court through a writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, the Scrutiny Committee issued a caste validity certificate to the petitioner’s daughter, Gayatri Yogesh Pawar, confirming her status as a Thakar, Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, as her father, argued that the same caste claim, supported by identical lineage and documentation, should not be subject to redundant scrutiny. The Additional Government Pleader confirmed that the daughter’s certificate was issued after proper inquiry and verification. The petitioner relied on precedents establishing that when a relative’s claim is validated, the same claim by a close blood relation should be presumed valid absent fraud.
The Legal Issue
Can a Scheduled Tribe caste validity claim be denied to an applicant solely because of procedural rejection, when a close blood relative with identical claims has already been granted a valid certificate after due process?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Scrutiny Committee’s rejection was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale, both of which hold that when a blood relative’s caste claim is verified, the same claim by a close family member must be accepted unless fraud is proven. He emphasized that subjecting the petitioner to a fresh inquiry on identical evidence was wasteful, discriminatory, and contrary to established guidelines.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader did not contest the validity of the daughter’s certificate and confirmed it was issued after due procedure. However, the State initially maintained that each application must be independently evaluated. After the Court’s inquiry, the State conceded that no fraud was alleged or proven against the petitioner and that the daughter’s certificate was genuine. This concession effectively abandoned any substantive opposition to the petitioner’s claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precedents cited by the petitioner, particularly the Supreme Court’s three-principle framework in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti and its own earlier decision in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale. The Court found that the principles articulated in these judgments are grounded in administrative rationality and constitutional equity. The Court noted that requiring repeated verification of identical claims among verified relatives serves no public interest and imposes undue burden on both applicants and the State machinery.
"We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat- Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud."
The Court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud lies squarely on the Scrutiny Committee. In the absence of any allegation or evidence of fraud in the petitioner’s case, and given that the daughter’s certificate was confirmed as validly issued, the petitioner’s claim must be accepted. The Court rejected the notion that each application must undergo a full independent inquiry when the factual basis is identical and the familial relationship is undisputed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent for the presumptive validation of caste claims among close blood relatives when one member’s status has been lawfully confirmed. Practitioners representing applicants for Scheduled Tribe certificates can now rely on this ruling to challenge arbitrary rejections where a parent, sibling, or child has already been verified. The burden shifts to the Scrutiny Committee to prove fraud if it wishes to deny a claim based on a relative’s verified status. This principle applies not only to Thakar but to all Scheduled Tribes and other notified communities under the caste certification regime. However, the ruling does not extend to distant relatives or cases where the familial link is disputed. It also does not override the requirement for original documentation or verification of lineage. The six-week timeline for issuance sets a practical benchmark for administrative compliance in similar cases.
