The Bombay High Court has quashed the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee’s rejection of two siblings’ “Mahadev Koli” claims. It declared that they belong to the tribe and directed validity certificates to be issued within three weeks.
A caste scrutiny committee cannot discard a pre-Independence document, which carries high probative value, merely because it suspects a later addition or a different ink. It must show, through expert opinion or comparison with admitted handwriting, that the person who benefits from the entry made the interpolation. Failure to consider the only pre-Independence document, relying on other adverse entries, vitiates the order. The omission of a distant ancestor from a genealogy tree is not a ground to overlook such a document.
The Committee had disregarded the family’s only pre-Independence document, the 1937 birth record of the petitioners’ grandfather, because his name appeared to have been added later in a different ink. Truptej Kamble sought validation of his caste certificate for MBBS admission after scoring 294 in NEET 2023, and his sister Tejaswi Kamble’s claim was rejected in 2020 on similar grounds. The Vigilance Cell’s report and the Committee’s order of 21 August 2023 rejected the claim, citing the later addition in the birth entry dated 3 June 1937 (the name was added on 8 June 1937), inconsistencies in school records of paternal relatives where the word “Mahadev” was added or “Hindu Koli” was recorded, and the absence of the grandfather’s mother from the genealogy tree. Justices R.I. Chagla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held in the petitioners’ favour. Relying on Anand and Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, they said that pre-Independence documents have greater probative value. Applying the Supreme Court’s Sayanna ruling, they held that the Committee cannot infer interpolation merely from a later addition or a different ink. It must show that the person claiming the benefit made the addition, using a handwriting expert or comparison with admitted writing, and the Committee did neither. A later addition of a child’s name after the naming ceremony is common and is not by itself suspicious, and the record was in the custody of the municipal corporation, so the petitioners had no opportunity to tamper with it. Following Minakshi Gholap, the court added that failing to consider a material document, by pointing to other adverse documents, vitiates the order. It allowed both petitions, declared them members of the “Mahadev Koli” Scheduled Tribe and directed the Committee to issue validity certificates in three weeks.
Citation: Truptej Dhondiram Kamble v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 11653 of 2023 (with Tejaswi Dhondiram Kamble v. Competent Authority/Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 425 of 2021), Bombay High Court (Justices R.I. Chagla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla), decided on 22.10.2026 | 2026:BHC-AS:43028-DB
Leave a Reply