While allowing a petition challenging the order passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 in a proceeding under section 7, refuting the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Hindu Mahar scheduled caste, the Bombay High Court directed the Committee to issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner as Hindu Mahar within two weeks.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme held that “The petitioner has been married apparently according to Hindu rites. Photographs were made available to the scrutiny committee. The revenue record at least referred to the petitioner’s grandfather as Mahar way back in the year 1929 and except for the cross having been painted at the entrance and the finding of a bust of Jesus Christ inside the house, there was no material before the committee to discard the petitioner’s claim. The observations and conclusions of the committee are perverse, arbitrary, and capricious.”

The Bench stated that in a reply to the vigilance cell report, the petitioner had expressly admitted about burials had taken place in her family but she had expressly mentioned that such was a ritual being followed even in her Mahar caste.

“The committee had no explanation to discard this stand of the petitioner. Besides, the vigilance cell did not mention that such burials had taken place on Christian burial grounds. If such was material before the committee, the conclusion drawn by it referring to this circumstance was again a perverse and arbitrary finding”, added the Bench.

Advocate V.S. Bedre appeared for the petitioner, whereas Addl.GP M.A. Deshpande appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case, it was convened that though there was ample material collected by the vigilance cell and available to the scrutiny committee, the committee proceeded with a prejudiced mind which was not even enough to entertain doubt about the petitioner’s family having been converted to Christianity. It was contended that the church had informed the vigilance cell that none of the family members was ever baptized and none was a member of the church in the vicinity of their village. Besides, there was an old school record pointing out that the petitioner’s paternal ancestors had been Mahar.

After considering the submissions, the Bench said that it was necessary to note that though the petitioner was heavily relying upon the school record of two women Jaibai Mohan Kharat and Maribai Mohan Kharat and though the first name of her paternal aunts tallied, her grandfather’s name was Keru Kondiba Kharat whereas the school record of Jaibai Mohan Kharat and Maribai Mohan Kharat had been produced. That being the case, the scrutiny committee had not committed any error in discarding the present evidence.

The Bench also noted that the school record of the petitioner’s father of 1974 referred to him as Hindu Mahar and there were no allegations about there being any manipulation in this school record.

Even there was a revenue record in the form of revenue receipts which were produced before the scrutiny committee wherein the grandfather of the petitioner had been expressly described as Mahar, added the Bench.

The High Court stated that the committee was not called upon to consider if the family was holding some Mahar Watan land, and rather, it was called upon to consider if the old record was sufficient to substantiate, as a circumstance such a claim when there was a specific reference in the revenue receipt of petitioner’s grandfather as Mahar.

When there was no doubt about it being a genuine document, the committee could not have discarded it when it prima facie showed that the petitioner’s grandfather was being treated as Mahar in the year 1929 and he could not have willingly accepted when there was untouchability in existence, added the Court.

Cause Title: Suvarna v. The State of Maharashtra

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Bombay High CourtJustice Mangesh S. PatilJustice Shailesh P Brahme

Pankaj Bajpai