05 August 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent judicial pronouncement of Ashwini Prakash Devre v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Mumbai & Another, a petitioner challenged the decision of a scrutiny committee constituted under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, which had refused to validate her ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe certificate. The committee's order included the confiscation and cancellation of her certificate, prompting the petitioner to seek redress under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Arguments and Court Observations:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the scrutiny committee, despite conducting a vigilance inquiry, failed to reference any adverse records and disregarded favorable evidence, which included descriptions of her relatives as ‘Mahadev Koli’ or ‘Koli Mahadev’. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the committee's insistence on pre-constitutional records was arbitrary, pointing out that previous court rulings established that such records should not be mandatory for validating tribe claims.

In contrast, the learned Advocate General (AGP) defended the committee’s findings. He asserted that the favorable records provided by the petitioner, dating from 1983 to 2020, were insufficient to substantiate her claim. The committee rightly applied area restrictions and the affinity test, concluding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by section 8 of the Act.

The Court's Rationale:

Upon reviewing the submissions and the case records, the court recognized the importance of the evidence required to substantiate tribe claims. While acknowledging that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, it emphasized that the nature of evidence cannot be strictly dictated. The court reiterated that insisting on pre-constitutional evidence is not legally tenable, a point supported by various precedents.

Despite the petitioner’s recent documentary evidence, the court noted its limitations. It recognized the potential motivations behind recent entries in records—specifically, the desire to benefit from the reservation policies established since 1950. Thus, the committee's application of the affinity test was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

Affinity Test and Its Implications:

The court referred to established legal principles surrounding the affinity test, underscoring that while this test should not be a litmus test, it holds significance in verifying claims when the committee is not satisfied with the provided material. The court cited pertinent Supreme Court rulings which outline that the affinity test involves assessing an applicant's knowledge of their community's customs, rituals, and other significant traits. In this case, the court found that the petitioner could not adequately demonstrate her knowledge of these aspects, as revealed by the vigilance inquiry. Moreover, there was no substantial challenge to the committee’s findings regarding the affinity test in either the petitioner’s responses or her legal filings.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the court concluded that, although the committee may have incorrectly emphasized the need for pre-constitutional records, its refusal to validate the petitioner’s tribe certificate based on the evidence presented and the results of the affinity test was reasonable. The judgment underscored the need for scrutiny committees to carefully evaluate both the nature of the evidence provided and the applicants' connections to their claimed communities. In light of these findings, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the committee's decision and discharging the rule. This case reaffirms the delicate balance between protecting the rights of individuals seeking to validate their tribe claims and ensuring the integrity of the verification process established by law.

  Indian Evidence Act, 1872