| Headnote |
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 – ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 – Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 – rr. 10, 12 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 – Whether paramount importance should be given to the affinity test while adjudicating upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste certificate issued by a Competent Authority – In other words, the question is whether the affinity test is a litmus test for deciding a caste claim – Held: Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell – While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant – Only after a case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise – When an 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 – In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.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 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 – Whether Caste Scrutiny Committee performs quasi-judicial function – Held : Scrutiny Committee under the 2000 Act has been entrusted with various powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The powers include a power to enforce the attendance of any witness, to receive evidence on affidavits, to issue commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents etc – The scheme of the 2000 Act and both SC and ST Rules provides for the Scrutiny Committee holding an enquiry on the caste claim of the applicant, if necessary, after examining the applicant on oath, recording evidence of witnesses and calling for documents and records etc. – Scrutiny Committee is expected to record reasons for granting and rejecting the prayer for issue of caste validity certificates – Thus, the Scrutiny Committee has all the trappings of a quasi-judicial authorityMaharashtra 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 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 –There was a conflict of views expressed in Vijakumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors. regarding recourse to affinity test – Held: In view of the fact that the 2000 Act and Rules were not considered, the decision in the case of Vijakumar is not a binding precedent for the proposition that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee is required to take recourse to the affinity test by referring the case to the Vigilance Cell – This Court record similar reasons as held in the case of Anand that affinity test will not always be mandatory and/or conclusive. |
