20 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to declare a student, Sujal Mangala Birwadkar (formerly Sujal Santosh Mokal), as belonging to the 'Chambhar' Scheduled Caste community. The ruling upheld the decision of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, which had previously rejected his caste claim.

The petitioner's case was based on his mother, Mangala, belonging to the 'Chambhar' Scheduled Caste, while his father, Santosh Mahadeo Mokal, is from the 'Hindu Agri' caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste. His parents were divorced in 2016, and the petitioner's custody remained with his mother.

Initially, the petitioner's caste was recorded as 'Hindu Agri' (his father's caste) in primary school. However, after the divorce, his mother changed his name and recorded his caste as 'Chambhar' for secondary school admission. Subsequently, while in the 11th standard, his mother applied for a 'Chambhar' caste certificate for him, which was initially issued by the Competent Authority. The college then forwarded the claim for verification to the Scrutiny Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee, after conducting a vigilance inquiry and reviewing three reports, ultimately rejected the caste claim. The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that he was not granted an opportunity to be heard, his father never supported him, and he suffered deprivations and indignities as a member of the Scheduled Caste community due to his mother's background.

However, the State's counsel highlighted that the vigilance reports indicated the petitioner's mother was continuously employed in the Central Police Mumbai Port, earning a substantial income, and had never claimed maintenance from the father. The father also stated he had attempted to connect with the petitioner, but the mother prevented it. Furthermore, the petitioner received his secondary education in Kendriya Vidyalaya, and his maternal relatives owned property and were engaged in business, suggesting a satisfactory lifestyle. Crucially, his primary school records identified him with his father's 'Hindu Agri' caste.

The High Court, after reviewing the vigilance reports and the arguments, found no evidence presented by the petitioner to demonstrate that he suffered deprivations, indignities, humiliation, or other challenges typically faced by individuals from a Scheduled Caste community. The court emphasized that the petitioner's upbringing did not appear to be one of deprivation; he had the advantage of his father's upper caste status during his initial schooling and received a good education.

Citing its own Division Bench judgment in Swanubhuti Jivraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that for individuals born to parents of different castes (where the father is from an upper caste and the mother from a Scheduled Caste), it is crucial to demonstrate that they experienced discrimination, humiliation, and lack of opportunities due to their mother's Scheduled Caste identity.

Concluding that the petitioner did not suffer any handicap or disadvantage and had an advantageous start in life, the High Court dismissed the petition, discharging the rule.