Read Time: 05 minutes

After noting that two different views had been given on the question as to what should be the parameters available to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificate, a Supreme Court division bench placed the same before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of the issue by the three Judge Bench.

"The issue arises in many cases in the State of Maharashtra and in view of the fact, the special leave petitions were filed in the year 2009, we request the constitution of the larger Bench at an early date", observed the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam.

The correctness of a  Full Bench order of the Bombay High Court wherein it interpreted the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, 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 set of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act was questioned before the Top Court.

The High Court in the said judgment held that the affinity test is an integral part of the determination of the correctness of the claim of the caste certificate.

It further held that in order to determine whether a person genuinely belongs to a designated Scheduled Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee must have regard to the entire evidence including on the question as to whether the applicant has satisfied the affinity test.

In ‘Vijakumar Vs. State of Maharahtra & Ors.’ wherein, a certificate issued to the uncle of the appellant, it was held by the Top Court that it was of no use as such certificate is not found to be validated by the Scrutiny Committee and in another judgment of ‘Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.’, the said earlier judgment nor the judgment of the Full Bench of High Court was referred to. In this Court had delineated the parameters which have to be kept in view while deciding the genuineness of the caste certificate.

Thus, the Court said,

"Two judgments have taken a view which require a consideration by a larger Bench of three Judges for authoritative decision on the questions..."

Case Title: MAHARASHTRA ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT SWARAKSHAN SAMITI vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.