Yogesh Madhav Makalwad vs The State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 964 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27410 of 2024)

YOGESH MADHAV MAKALWAD …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS & ORS.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI.

FACTUAL ASPECT

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final

order dated 23rd July, 2024 passed by the learned Division

Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench

at Aurangabad1 in Writ Petition No. 8702 of 2019. Vide the

impugned judgment and final order, the High Court

dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 24th

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.08.12 17:15:25 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 1 of 14 June, 2019 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad2

confiscating and invalidating the Caste Certificate of the

appellant and his father for the Scheduled Tribe – Koli

Mahadev.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present

appeal are as under:

3.1. Way back in the year 1943, the appellant’s

grandfather, namely, Jalba Malba Makalwad, was

admitted in Zilla Parishad Primary School, Narangal,

Degloor Taluka, Nanded District wherein his caste was

mentioned as Koli Mahadev.

3.2. Thereafter, in the years 1975 and 1979, appellant’s

uncle, namely, Vyankat Jalba Makalwad and appellant’s

father, namely, Madhav Jalba Makalwad, were admitted in

Zilla Parishad Primary School, Kabirwadi, Degloor Taluka,

Nanded District. In the admission register, their caste was

mentioned as Koli Mahadev.

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Scrutiny Committee”

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 2 of 14 3.3. In the year 2005, the appellant was admitted in the

Janta Vidya Mandir Primary School, Murud Taluka, Latur

District wherein his caste was also mentioned as Koli

Mahadev.

3.4. On 21st May 2010, the State of Maharashtra issued a

circular being Government Circular No.

A.Ja.U.2009/Pra.No.61/Ka-1413 thereby announcing the

implementation of certain schemes in villages/colonies

having a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population

exceeding 40%. On the basis of the 2001 census,

appellant’s village is included in the list of eligible villages

under the said circular.

3.5. It appears that as on 18th June, 2010, the appellant’s

school leaving register also mentions him belonging to the

caste Koli Mahadev.

3.6. In 2019, the appellant appeared for the National

Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG examination,

wherein he scored 334 marks out of 720 marks thereby,

becoming eligible for admission in a Medical College on the

strength of his Caste Certificate. However, the Caste

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 3 of 14 Certificate of the appellant had not been validated till then.

The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition being W.P. No.

8702 of 2019 before the High Court seeking direction for

scrutinizing his Caste Certificate at the earliest so that he

can be admitted in a Medical College.

3.7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Scrutiny

Committee vide order dated 24th June, 2019 invalidated

the claim of the appellant and his father disbelieving

various documents placed on record such as the School

Admission and Leaving Extract of the appellant’s

grandfather from the year 1943, the school records of the

appellant’s father as well as the school records of

appellant’s uncle. Resultantly, the Scheduled Tribe

Certificates of the appellant and his father were cancelled

and impounded by the Scrutiny Committee.

3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant amended his writ

petition additionally challenging the order dated 24th June,

2019 passed by the Scrutiny Committee.

3.9. Vide impugned judgment and final order, the learned

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 4 of 14 stating that the school records of the relatives of the

appellant are neither reliable nor competitive to the claim

of the appellant and therefore, upheld the order dated

24th June, 2019 passed by the Scrutiny Committee

confiscating and invalidating the caste claim of the

appellant.

3.10. Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition

was filed by the appellant in which notice was issued vide

order dated 27th January 2025.

SUBMISSIONS

4. We have heard Shri Uday Bhaskar Dube, learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well

as Shri Shrirang B. Varma and Shri Varad Kilor, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

5. Shri Uday Bhaskar Dube, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the

Scrutiny Committee as well as the High Court has grossly

erred in dismissing the claim of the appellant. It is

submitted that the School Admission and Leaving Extract

of the appellant’s grandfather, which was recorded on

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 5 of 14 10th October, 1943 clearly indicates the caste as Koli

Mahadev. It is submitted that the same being a

pre-Independence document will have a greater probative

value and the Scrutiny Committee as well as the High

Court ought to have taken the same into consideration and

held the appellant’s caste claim of belonging to Koli

Mahadev Tribe valid.

6. Per contra, Shri Shrirang B. Varma and Shri Varad

Kilor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State

have vehemently opposed the appeal. They submitted that

the so-called document of 1943 is not free from doubt as

the opinion on handwriting with regard to interpolation is

inconclusive. It is further submitted that the appellant has

failed the affinity test. The appellant has not been in a

position to depose before the Scrutiny Committee with

regard to the customs and traditions followed by the Koli

Mahadev Tribe, as such, on this ground also the claim has

been rightly invalidated.

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 6 of 14 ANALYSIS

7. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the

judgment of this Court in the case of Anand v. Committee

for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims and

Others3. It would be relevant to refer paragraph 22 of the

said judgment which reads 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, 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. 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

3 (2012) 1 SCC 113

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 7 of 14 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 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 supplied]

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 8 of 14

8. It can, thus, be seen that this Court held that 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. Insofar as the applicability of

the affinity test is concerned, the Court observed that a

cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been observed

that 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 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. It is,

therefore, held that the affinity test may not be regarded

as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant

with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that merely

because the applicant does not match the tribe’s peculiar

anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 9 of 14 customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of

burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into

consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the

Scheduled Tribe.

9. In the present case, the appellant has placed on

record the School Admission and Leaving Extract in

respect of his grandfather namely, Jalba Malba Makalwad,

recorded on 10th October, 1943 which indicates his caste

as Koli Mahadev. Though the report of the handwriting

expert is inconclusive as to whether there is interpolation

or not, we have examined the said document with a

magnifying glass.

10. On the perusal of the entry, it is clear to us that the

words Koli Mahadev written in the entry are in the same

ink and in the same handwriting. Therefore, we find that

there could be no scope for interpolation in the said entry.

It is further to be noted that on the basis of this pre-

Independence entry, the school records of the appellant’s

father, Madhav Jalba Makalwad and his uncle, Vyankat

Jalba Makalwad also show the caste as Koli Mahadev.

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 10 of 14

11. One of the reasons given by the High Court in not

accepting the caste claim of the appellant is that the same

is not supported by any validated document. We are

informed that it is appellant’s father and the appellant who

have applied for the first time for validation of their Caste

Certificate. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the

claim of both, the appellant as well as his father.

12. In view of the pre-Independence document which

certifies that the appellant’s grandfather, Jalba Malba

Makalwad, to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, we are

of the considered opinion that a greater probative value

ought to have been given to the said document. However,

on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the said

document has been disbelieved.

13. Insofar as the affinity test is concerned, as held by

this Court in Anand (supra), with the change in times,

migration and modernisation, the joining of people from

the tribal population in the mainstream of the society, the

fact that they are not in a position to recollect the

anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 11 of 14 customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of

burial of dead bodies, etc., of their tribe cannot be solely a

ground ipso facto to deny the said claim.

14. We may also gainfully refer to a recent judgment of

this Court rendered by the three learned Judges in the

case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat

Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and

Others4 which reiterated the position that the affinity test

cannot be conclusive either way. It has been held that

when the 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. It has been reiterated that the affinity

test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not

an essential part in the process of determination of

correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

15. Apart from that, the view taken in Anand (supra) that

pre-Independence documents will have a greater probative

4 (2023) 16 SCC 415

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 12 of 14 value while considering the claim of the applicant has been

followed by this Court as well as various High Courts in

catena of decisions.

CONCLUSION

16. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered

view that the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating

the appellant’s caste claim as well as the impugned

judgment and final order of the High Court upholding the

same is not sustainable in law.

17. In the result, we pass the following order:

i. The appeal is allowed;

ii. The impugned judgment and final order dated 23rd

July, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court is quashed and set aside; and

iii. It is held that the appellant belongs to the Koli

Mahadev Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee is

directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the

appellant within a period of six weeks from the

date of this judgment.

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 13 of 14

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

….……….……………………..CJI.

(B.R.GAVAI)

…….………..……………………..J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

……………..……………………..J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi;

August 12, 2025.

CA of 2025 @ SLP(C) No. 27410 of 2024 Page 14 of 14