Bombay HC Directs Issuance Of ST Validity To Woman Relying On Brother’s Certificate, Quashes Scrutiny Panel Order

The Bombay High Court has quashed an order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, which had invalidated the caste claim of a Nashik Municipal Corporation employee, and directed that a validity certificate recognising her as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe be issued within 30 days, holding that the Committee could not disregard the caste validity granted to her real brother merely on the basis of pending proceedings against him.

A Division Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the Committee’s order dated 08.11.2024, observing that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra required due weight to be given to a caste validity granted to a blood relative after a lawful inquiry.

The Court, however, clarified that if the validity holders on whom the petitioner had relied suffer invalidation in reopened proceedings, the Committee would be at liberty to reopen her case and the consequences would follow.

The petitioner had been issued a caste certificate in 1991 certifying her as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe and had secured employment as a Junior Clerk with the Nashik Municipal Corporation in 1999.

Her caste claim was referred for verification in 2011. In 2019, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated her claim on the ground that she had failed to establish socio-cultural affinity with the tribe.

That order was set aside by the High Court in 2024 in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Upon remand, the Committee again invalidated her claim, despite the existence of a caste validity certificate issued in 2001 to her biological brother for the same tribe.

The Committee declined to extend the benefit of that certificate on the ground that show-cause notices had been issued proposing action against the brother.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that once a blood relative from the paternal side had been granted validity after a lawful vigilance inquiry, the Committee was bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court and could not insist on the affinity test as a determinative factor.

The State argued that the brother’s validity could not be treated as conclusive in view of the doubts raised and the pending proceedings.

The Bench held that the Supreme Court had categorically ruled that the affinity test is not a litmus test and that where a caste validity has been granted to a close blood relative after due inquiry, the Scrutiny Committee must ordinarily issue validity to the applicant if the relationship is established.

The Court noted that it would be impermissible to hold that a father or sibling belongs to a Scheduled Tribe while the applicant does not, in the absence of any finding that the earlier validity was obtained unlawfully.

Dealing with the State’s reliance on the show-cause notice issued to the brother, the Court held that mere initiation of proceedings alleging fraud would not justify denial of the benefit of an existing validity certificate.

It relied on precedent to hold that such a notice, by itself, does not erase the evidentiary value of the validity granted to a blood relative.

The Bench also noted that in a recent decision involving similar facts it had granted relief by directing issuance of validity with a safeguard permitting reopening if the relative’s certificate was later invalidated. Adopting the same course, it held that such a condition would balance the equities.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order, directed issuance of the caste validity certificate within 30 days and granted liberty to the Scrutiny Committee to reopen the petitioner’s case if the validity certificates of the relatives relied upon are invalidated in future proceedings.

Case Title: Shilpa Jay Wagh @ Pushpa Panduranga Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bench: Justice R. I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna

Date of Judgment: 17.02.2026