Primacy of Pre-Independence Caste Records & Limits on the Affinity Test
Commentary on Akshata d/o Dnyaneshwar Dongare & Anr. v. Vice-Chairman, ST Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (Bom HC, 11 Aug 2025)

1. Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench in the combined writ petitions of Dnyaneshwar and his daughter Akshata Dongare has delivered a significant ruling redefining how caste scrutiny committees must assess Scheduled Tribe (ST) claims in Maharashtra. Central to the dispute was the Committee’s rejection of the petitioners’ claim to the ‘Mana’ ST despite an uncontested 1932 kotwal (village record) entry. The Court has reaffirmed three critical propositions:

1. Pre-Independence documents carry the highest probative value and cannot be discarded arbitrarily.
2. Repeated or “re-enquiry” references to the Vigilance Cell under Rule 12(2) of the 2003 Rules require recorded reasons.
3. The anthropological “affinity test” is only corroborative; it is not a litmus test capable of overriding reliable documentary evidence.

This judgment provides litigants and administrative bodies with a clear hierarchy of evidence and process in caste verification, enhancing legal certainty for government employees and students who rely on tribal status for reservations.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Justices Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Pravin S. Patil) allowed the petitions, quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 28 April 2022, and directed issuance of caste validity certificates within four weeks. It held that:

• The 13 June 1932 kotwal entry naming the ancestors as “Mana” is a pre-Independence record of “high probative value”.
• The Committee’s direction for a second Vigilance Cell enquiry lacked reasons, violating Rule 12(2) of the Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2003.
• The Committee erred in treating later entries of “Mani/Mani-Kunbi” as decisive, and in over-emphasising petitioners’ alleged failure in the affinity test.
• Consequently, the petitioners are legally recognised as members of the Mana Scheduled Tribe (Entry 18 to the Constitution (ST) Order, 1950) and entitled to consequential service/educational benefits.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Anand v. Committee For Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919
   • Established that pre-Independence records have “a higher degree of probative value”.
   • Clarified that affinity tests are only corroborative; failure therein cannot per se defeat a valid documentary claim.
   • The Bombay High Court directly invoked paragraphs 18–19 to accord primacy to the 1932 entry and to downplay the Committee’s heavy reliance on affinity findings.
2. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241
   • Formulated the vigilance enquiry framework and emphasised anthropological verification.
   • The Dongare Court applied Guideline 5 but added that the Committee must show the officer possessed specialised knowledge before discrediting the affinity responses.
3. Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online SC 326
   • Held that reference to the Vigilance Cell is not mechanical; it is warranted only when the Committee is “not satisfied” with the prima facie evidence.
   • Reiterated that the affinity test is not a litmus test, echoing Anand.
   • The High Court borrowed paragraphs 20–25 to condemn the Committee’s unexplained “re-enquiry”.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted by the Court

The Court’s reasoning proceeds on three axes:

1. Evidentiary Hierarchy: By characterising the 1932 kotwal entry as “unambiguous” and “the oldest”, the Court placed it at the apex of evidentiary value. Later descriptions such as “Mani-Kunbi” could not override it, especially when those later records originated in the post-reserve era where mis-classification incentives existed.
2. Procedural Fairness under Rule 12(2): The second Vigilance Cell enquiry, which eventually produced an adverse report, was initiated without recorded dissatisfaction. The Court called this a “grave error”. The implicit principle: once a positive vigilance report endorses an old record, the Committee must either accept it or record cogent reasons for disbelief before directing further enquiry.
3. Qualified Role of Affinity Test: The Court evaluated the questionnaire administered to Dnyaneshwar. Finding that he answered credibly and that the officer’s report lacked anthropological expertise, the Court held that “in absence of any remark … that petitioners failed”, the affinity component could not dislodge the documentary foundation.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Administrative Practice: Scrutiny Committees across Maharashtra will now be compelled to:
  • Articulate reasons before seeking multiple vigilance reports;
  • Give decisive weight to pre-1950 documents unless proven forged or irrelevant;
  • Treat affinity tests strictly as corroborative tools, not determinative filters.
• Ligation Strategy: Petitioners can foreground a single reliable pre-Independence record to shift the onus onto the Committee. The decision arms advocates with a step-by-step checklist to challenge rejections.
• Employment & Education: The ruling protects long-serving employees (like Dnyaneshwar, appointed in 1992) from career-ending invalidations issued decades later. Students similarly benefit from quicker, less capricious scrutiny.
• Jurisprudential Development: Although the cited Supreme Court dicta existed, Dongare crystallises them into an enforceable procedural mandate under the 2003 Rules—effectively elevating them to binding precedent within Maharashtra.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Kotwal Book: A village land-revenue register kept during the British era by the kotwal (village officer). Entries pre-dating 1950 are considered neutral because reservations did not exist then.
• Vigilance Cell: A police-led investigative unit attached to each Scrutiny Committee to verify documents and administer anthropological (affinity) tests.
• Affinity Test: A questionnaire or interaction aimed at gauging a claimant’s knowledge of tribal customs, deities, rituals, etc. It derives from anthropological theory but is inherently subjective.
• Rule 12(2) of the 2003 Rules: Provides that reference to the Vigilance Cell is warranted only if the Committee is “not satisfied” with the documents before it—requiring recorded reasons.
• Probative Value: The capability of evidence to prove something in court. Pre-Independence records are viewed as having high probative value because they pre-date reservation incentives.

5. Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Dongare fortifies applicants’ reliance on pre-Independence caste records and reins in the oft-criticised overuse of affinity tests. By strictly enforcing Rule 12(2)’s “recorded reasons” requirement and emphasizing that vigilance enquiries cannot be an endless loop, the Court brings procedural discipline to caste adjudication. In broader terms, the ruling advances constitutional equality by ensuring that genuine tribal claimants—many of whom are first-generation beneficiaries of affirmative action—are insulated from bureaucratic arbitrariness. Going forward, caste scrutiny bodies must tread carefully: they may test, but they cannot fish; they may corroborate, but they cannot contradict reliable historical truth without cogent justification.