'Affinity Test' Cannot Be Applied As Litmus Test For Scrutinizing Caste Claims ; Pre-Constitution Period Documents Have Got Highest Probative Value : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that 'affinity test' cannot be applied as a litmus test during scrutiny of caste claims.

"If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the per Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order", the bench of Justices observed.

In this case, theScheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the applicant (that she belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe) on the following grounds: (1) She failed to satisfy the Affinity Test conducted during the vigilance inquiry. (2) She failed to prove that she originally belongs to an area where the people of Mana Scheduled Tribe reside. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this order.

In appeal, the High Court noted the judgment in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (2012) 1 SCC 113, and said:

"This court has held that while applying the Affinity Test which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been held that a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that the claim by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits etc. It has been held that though the Affinity Test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence, it should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim.."

"It could thus clearly be seen that this Court has held that if the appellant has stayed in bigger urban areas along with his family for decades or if his family has stayed in such urban areas for decades, the applicant may not have knowledge of the aforesaid facts. This Court has, therefore, held that the Affinity Test cannot be applied as a litmus test."

The court noted that there is no reason to discard the pre-Constitutional document of the period as early as 1924. It said:

"Documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value. If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the perConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order."

Allowing the appeal, the court declared that the appellant belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

Case details

Priya Pramod Gajbe vs State of Maharashtra | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 591 | 2023 INSC 663

Headnotes

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate - The affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe - The claim by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits etc.- Though the Affinity Test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence, it should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim - If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the perConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment