Pre-Constitution "Koshti" Entries In Family Records To Be Treated As Profession Of Weaving, Not Caste, In Halba Tribe Claims: Bombay High Court
The Bench held that where ‘Koshti’ was not a recognised caste category at the time of entry, certificates must be interpreted as reflecting the family’s weaving trade.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held that administrative entries recording a person as ‘Koshti’ in documents from the 1940s and 1950s should be treated as a reference to their profession. The Court observed that since ‘Koshti’ was not a recognised legal caste category (Special Backward Class) until 1995, such entries in the family records of 'Halba' tribe claimants must be construed as a profession rather than an evidence of a different caste identity.
The Court noted that in the present matter, ‘Koshti’ entries in the records of certain relatives were the result of the petitioners' forefathers choosing to adopt the profession of weaving. By establishing this professional context, the Court affirmed that 100-year-old registered documents, specifically a 1914 Gift-deed recording the lineage as "Halbi @ Koshti", carry superior probative value and prove that the trade label did not extinguish the underlying tribal status.
Justice M. S. Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande while noting that the Scrutiny Committee had failed to even discuss these material pieces of evidence, observed, “…there was no caste ‘Koshti’ recognized till 1995 as SBC. In view thereof, even there is an entry of ‘Koshti’ in some of the documents, it has to be treated as profession. At any rate, the oldest document of 1904, which was duly verified from the original by the then Committee, which cannot be doubted and questioned and its genuineness is already tested. The document of 1904 wherein the caste is shown as ‘Halba’ even the document of 1909 the caste is shown as ‘Halba’. The Gift-deed of 1914 makes it clear that the person Bhat who used to maintain the lineage of ‘Halbi’ tribes specifically written as Halbi @ Koshti in the registered gift-deed. It has evidentiary value because it is an archaeological piece of evidence, which was duly certified by the Competent authority of Archaeological department”.
Senior Advocate A. S. Mardikar appeared for the petitioners and N. R. Patil, AGP appeared for the respondents.
In the matter, the petitioner, in the lead petition, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1996 and presently posted at a ZP Primary School in Nagpur, had submitted his tribe claim in 2013.
The petitioners, presented a 1914 Gift-deed maintained by a local Bhat (genealogist) and verified by the Archaeological Department. This document, along with school admission extracts from 1904 and 1909 recording the caste as 'Halba,' formed the bedrock of their claim.
The Scrutiny Committee had previously rejected these claims by focusing on service records from 1943 to 1950 that listed relatives as 'Koshti'.
Pertinently, the petitioners had sought legal protection after being terminated from their permanent posts and moved to supernumerary positions during the verification process. The Court had earlier ordered an expedited decision, which eventually led to the Committee’s September 09, 2020 order of invalidation.
The Court noted that the 'Halba' tribe historically adopted weaving, leading to the "Halbi @ Koshti" nomenclature found in the 1914 registered deed. The Bench held that the Scrutiny Committee’s refusal to consider the archaeological certification and the 1904 verified entries was "patently perverse". It reaffirmed that pre-Independence documents carry a higher degree of probative value and that professional shifts do not extinguish tribal status.
“The Scrutiny Committee has not discussed about these documents at all. This material piece of evidence was not considered by the Committee specifically oldest documents will prevail over the subsequent documents. Even if there is an entry of ‘Koshti’, the affidavit of said Bhat was simply brushed aside on the ground that affidavit is not evidence. However, the Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that the affidavit in respect of the document, there is a certification of the Archaeological Department, which is having a great probative value. Moreover, the said gift-deed is registered on 27.04.1914”, the Bench noted.
“…The said Gift-deed of the Bhat is registered one, it was duly registered in the year 1914. As such, it is more than 100 years old document and, therefore, its genuineness cannot be doubted”, it further noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed both the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and declared the petitioners as belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The Respondent No. 2 Committee was directed to issue validity certificates within four weeks.
Cause Title: Mahendra S/o Manoharrao Hedau v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. with Varsha D/o Sudhakarrao Hedau v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6901-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: A. S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate, S. D. Borkute, Advocate.
Respondents: N. R. Patil, AGP, D. M. Kale, Usha Gujar, Advocates.