AVINASH BHARAT AHIRE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.
Primacy of Pre-Constitutional Documents and Blood Relative Validity Certificates over Affinity Tests in Scheduled Tribe Claim Verifications.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:8827-DB
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000; Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003; Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice and Probative Value of Evidence
- Facts: The Petitioners, Avinash Bharat Ahire and Tushar Bharat Ahire, claimed to belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe (ST). In support of their claim, they submitted multiple documents, including a pre-independence school record of their grandfather from 1917, school records of their father and uncles, and Caste Validity Certificates already issued to their real brother and cousin brothers. Despite this, the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated their tribe claims on May 4, 2019, primarily relying on the "Affinity Test" (failure to prove cultural traits) and "area restriction" (the family not residing in original tribal tracts). The Committee also noted that the surname "Thakur" is associated with higher castes in certain regions. Consequently, Avinash’s appointment as a Sales Tax Inspector, which was secured under the ST quota, was put at risk.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners challenged the Scrutiny Committee's decision by filing Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This was the second round of litigation, as the High Court had previously remanded the matter in 2014 for fresh consideration, which resulted in the same invalidation by the Committee in 2019.
- Issue: Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee erred in invalidating the Petitioners' tribe claims by ignoring pre-constitutional documentary evidence and over-relying on the affinity test?
- Holding: Yes, the Court held that the Committee's order was unsustainable and vitiated by non-appreciation of facts and law.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that pre-constitutional documents, such as the 1917 school record of the grandfather, possess significant probative value and cannot be ignored unless fraud is proven. Relying on "Madhuri Patil vs. Commissioner", the Court emphasized that documentary evidence must prevail over the affinity test. Furthermore, citing "Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State", the Court clarified that the affinity test is not a "litmus test" and cannot be used to discard valid documentary proof. The Court also noted that since validity certificates were already granted to the Petitioners' real brother and cousins after due inquiry, and no fraud was alleged, the Committee could not take a different view for the Petitioners. The "area restriction" was also deemed irrelevant as it was removed by the 1976 Amendment Act.
🔒 For Members Only