The Bombay High Court has upheld an order of the Scrutiny Committee rejecting a boy’s claim of belonging to the ‘Chambhar’ caste after noting that his father belongs to the ‘Hindu Agri’ caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste, and his mother belongs to the ‘Chambhar’ community. The High Court also noted that there was nothing on record to show that his mother suffered any humiliation due to her caste, which manifested onto him.

The High Court was considering a Petition whereby the petitioner sought quashing of the Judgment passed by the Respondent -District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raigad. The petitioner also sought a declaration that he belongs to the ‘Chambhar’ Scheduled Caste community of his mother’s side, as well as issuance of a validity certificate of the said caste.

The Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere & Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “ In the light of the peculiar facts as above and taking into account the documents before us, it is clear that the Petitioner had a good education, was never discriminated against and did not suffer any disadvantages on account of his mother belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. He did not suffer any handicap and did have an advantageous start in life.”

Advocate Nikhil V. Adkine represented the Petitioner while Additional Government Pleader B. V. Samant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner’s parents got married in the year 2004. His father belongs to the ‘Hindu Agri’ caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste, but his mother belongs to the ‘Chambhar’ community, which is a Scheduled Caste. The Petitioner was born in 2006, and both his parents were serving in the Central Armed Police Force. His parents got divorced later. When the petitioner was studying in the 11th Standard, his mother applied for a certificate of ‘Chambhar’ caste for him.

The Competent Authority issued the said certificate certifying that the Petitioner belonged to ‘Chambhar’- a Scheduled Caste. However, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the Petitioner and refused to grant a validity certificate. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the Vigilance Reports and the statements of the witnesses, the Bench noted that the same indicated that the Petitioner’s mother was in continuous service in the Central Police, Mumbai Port. The statement of the Petitioner’s father also indicated that post-divorce, the Petitioner’s mother never claimed any maintenance for herself or the Petitioner, as she was capable of maintaining herself and the Petitioner. It was also noticed that the Petitioner’s mother had recorded his caste as ‘Hindu Agri’ in his school, and the same was recorded in the School Leaving Certificate.

The Scrutiny Committee had concluded that the Petitioner did not suffer any humiliation, nor was he deprived of a good education.

Reference was made to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Swanubhuti Jivraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025) wherein it has been held that a person who is born to parents belonging to different castes, especially when the father belongs to the upper caste community and the mother-to a Scheduled Caste community, has to demonstrate that he was treated shabbily, he suffered humiliation and insults on account of his mother being a Scheduled Caste person, he was deprived of opportunities in education and employment on account of his mother being a Scheduled Caste person, etc., for him to be declared as a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste community.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the entire nurturing and upbringing of the Petitioner, although it had been done by his mother, did not appear to be that of deprivation. “He had the advantage of his father’s upper caste during his schooling days, and his caste was recorded as ‘Hindu Agri’ in his school records. His mother, throughout her career, continued to be employed by the Central Police Mumbai Port. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner’s mother suffered any humiliation, which was manifested onto the Petitioner”, the Bench held.

Thus, rejecting the contention that the petitioner was eligible to be declared as a person from the ‘Chambhar’ community, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Sujal Mangala Birwadkar v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:24351-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Nikhil V. Adkine

Respondent: Additional Government Pleader B. V. Samant

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Revati Mohite DereJustice Dr.Neela Gokhale

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.