Supreme Court of India Establishes Affinity Test as Non-Litmus in Caste Certificate Verification Process

Introduction

The landmark judgment in Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarashan Samiti v. The State of Maharashtra (2023 INSC 286) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on March 24, 2023, addresses critical procedural issues in the verification of caste claims for Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra. The case primarily revolves around the procedural requirements for issuing and scrutinizing caste certificates, particularly focusing on the role and conclusiveness of the affinity test in determining the genuineness of caste claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the procedural framework established by 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, and the corresponding ST Rules of 2003. The central issue was whether the affinity test should be considered a mandatory and conclusive factor in validating a caste claim. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court had previously held that the affinity test is integral to verifying caste claims, especially for individuals bearing the surname "Thakur," which spans both forward and backward class communities. However, the Supreme Court diverged from this stance, emphasizing that the affinity test should not be a litmus test and should only be employed when the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence provided by the applicant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents:

• Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994): Established the need for procedural guidelines in verifying caste claims.
• Vijakumar v. State of Maharashtra (2010): Held that failure in the affinity test precludes the granting of a caste certificate.
• Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (2012): Asserted that the affinity test should corroborate documentary evidence rather than serve as the sole determinant.
• Collector, Satara v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (2019): Clarified that Vigilance Cell assistance is only necessary when the Scrutiny Committee doubts the documentary evidence.
• Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012): Discussed the quasi-judicial nature of the Scrutiny Committee.

These precedents collectively shaped the court's understanding of the balance between documentary evidence and affinity tests in caste verification.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the 2000 Act and the ST Rules, emphasizing that the Scrutiny Committee operates within a two-tier verification system. The first tier involves the Competent Authority issuing a preliminary caste certificate based on prima facie evidence. The second tier is the Scrutiny Committee's verification, which may involve an affinity test if the initial evidence is deemed insufficient.

Key points in the legal reasoning include:

• The affinity test should only be employed when documentary evidence fails to conclusively establish the caste claim.
• The affinity test is not inherently conclusive and should not override substantive documentary evidence.
• The Scrutiny Committee must record reasons when referring a case to the Vigilance Cell, ensuring transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
• The procedural safeguards under the 2000 Act and ST Rules provide a structured framework that negates the need for the affinity test to be a mandatory step in every case.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts the verification process of caste claims in Maharashtra and potentially across India. By clarifying that the affinity test is not a mandatory litmus test, the Supreme Court ensures that genuine applicants are not unfairly disqualified due to cultural assimilation or lack of specific knowledge related to their tribal community. This decision promotes a more balanced approach, relying on substantive documentary evidence while recognizing the role of cultural affinity where necessary.

Furthermore, the judgment reinforces the procedural integrity of the Scrutiny Committee, mandating that referrals to the Vigilance Cell occur only when there is legitimate doubt about the evidence presented. This reduces arbitrary and potentially discriminatory practices in the issuance of caste certificates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Affinity Test

The affinity test assesses an applicant's genuine connection to a particular Scheduled Tribe by evaluating their knowledge of cultural, religious, and social practices specific to that tribe. This includes understanding deities, rituals, customs, marriage and death ceremonies, and burial methods.

Scrutiny Committee

An authoritative body constituted under the 2000 Act responsible for verifying the authenticity of caste claims. It conducts detailed inquiries and decides whether to validate or reject a caste certificate.

Vigilance Cell

A specialized unit within the Scrutiny Committee tasked with conducting in-depth investigations when the initial evidence is insufficient. It verifies the applicant's social status by examining personal and familial connections to the claimed tribe.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarashan Samiti v. The State of Maharashtra marks a pivotal shift in the verification process of caste claims. By deeming the affinity test as non-conclusive and not mandatory in every instance, the Court ensures that the verification process is both fair and evidence-based. This judgment safeguards the rights of genuine applicants against arbitrary disenfranchisement while maintaining stringent checks against fraudulent claims. Moving forward, authorities must adhere to the clarified guidelines, ensuring that the Scrutiny Committee employs the affinity test judiciously and transparently, thereby upholding the constitutional protections afforded to Scheduled Tribes.