SANGITA BHIKAJI MASAGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Caste Validity Claim: Remand for Fresh Consideration Based on Blood Relatives' Certificates and Scrutiny Committee Procedures.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:2906-DB
Decision Date: 13-01-2026
List of Laws
Caste Validity; Caste Scrutiny Committee Procedure; Affinity Test; Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v/s. State of Maharashtra; Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others
- Facts: Sangita Bhikaji Masage's caste claim as belonging to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe was rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. She challenged this rejection via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the SLP, several of her paternal blood relatives were issued caste validity certificates as belonging to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
- Procedural Posture: The Hon'ble Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court is now considering the matter again after the Supreme Court's remand.
- Issue: Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the Petitioner's caste claim, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration, especially considering the caste validity certificates issued to the Petitioner's blood relatives. Also, what is the role and importance of the affinity test in determining caste claims?
- Holding: The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration, particularly to verify the family tree and the validity certificates issued to the Petitioner's blood relatives.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat Saurakshan Samiti v/s. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that the affinity test is not a litmus test for determining caste claims. The Court also referred to Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, highlighting that if a blood relative's caste claim has been validated, the Committee should generally accept a similar claim unless there is evidence of fraud. The Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to verify the family tree produced by the Petitioner and to consider the validity certificates issued to her blood relatives, while also clarifying that only when the Scrutiny Committee, after holding an inquiry, is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to the Vigilance Cell.
🔒 For Members Only