Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Ku. Aishwarya Uddhav Parate vs The S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 16 March, 2026 cites

Anand vs Committee For S.&V. Of Tribe Claims &Ors on 8 November, 2011

12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has placed before this Court pre-independence documentary evidence of considerable antiquity, tracing her tribal lineage back to the year 1914. The school transfer certificate of the great-great-grandfather Raoji Atmaram Parate dated 01.06.1914 and the school leaving J-wp1895.24 final.odt 8/12 certificate of the grandfather Chintaman Raoji Parate dated 01.02.1938 both spanning over decades consistently and unequivocally record the caste as 'Halba'. As held in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (supra), it is well settled that pre-independence documents occupy the highest rung in the hierarchy of evidence and must be accorded precedence and primacy while adjudicating caste claims. Such documents bearing consistent entries of caste as 'Halba' across successive generations, would, in the ordinary course, have been more than sufficient to establish the petitioner's tribal identity beyond reasonable doubt. The Committee was, therefore, duty-bound to accord due primacy to such evidence and to decide the claim in conformity therewith. It is a matter of considerable concern, however, that the Committee, instead of discharging this duty, has chosen to brand these centuryold records as 'suspicious and doubtful' by a mere ipse dixit, without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reasons therefor and without the support of any expert opinion or material that could justify so grave a conclusion. Such an approach not only reflects a manifest failure to appreciate the evidentiary weight of pre-independence documents but also renders the impugned order perverse and unsustainable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 341 - D K Jain - Full Document

Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2023

13. The Committee has further rejected the petitioner's J-wp1895.24 final.odt 9/12 claim on the ground of failure to establish the affinity test. It is a settled principle of law that where overwhelming pre-independence documentary evidence conclusively establishes tribal identity spanning multiple generations, the affinity test is rendered entirely irrelevant and superfluous for the affinity test, at best, supplements documentary evidence but can never supplant it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) reported in AIR 2023 SC 1657, has categorically held that the affinity test is not a litmus test, cannot be treated as conclusive either way, and that authentic pre- independence documents establishing tribal membership cannot be discarded. The Committee's own admission in its RTI reply dated 21.07.2022 that it possesses no knowledge whatsoever of the characteristics, affinity or social status of the Halba Tribe strikes at the very root of any affinitybased rejection and renders the same wholly unsustainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 89 - A Oka - Full Document

Ku. Falguni Raghunandan Parate vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 5 October, 2023

15. Without prejudice to the foregoing, even if certain ancestors of the petitioner were recorded as "Koshti" such entries cannot be treated as conclusive, for as held in Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors., 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180, an entry of "Koshti" must be read J-wp1895.24 final.odt 11/12 alongside the profession recorded, since persons engaged in weaving were traditionally and colloquially referred to as "Koshti" irrespective of their tribal identity.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Sayana @ Shahjan Sagir Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 2022

16. The Scrutiny Committee has also discarded the pre- independence school records on the ground of alleged discrepancies in ink and handwriting. Insofar as the school records of Raoji Atmaram Parate and Chintaman Raoji Parate are concerned, the Vigilance Cell has done no more than advert to certain perceived variations in ink in the registers and to the existence of a solitary promotion register entry recording the caste of Chintaman Raoji as "Koshti". These observations, resting entirely upon a visual and untrained comparison of old registers, are plainly insufficient and legally inadequate to dislodge the old primary school records produced by the petitioner. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sayana Vs. State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal no. 6253 of 2009 has held that Scrutiny Committee is not vested with the expertise to adjudicate upon questions of handwriting, interpolation, or fabrication, and that a finding of forgery arrived at by mere visual comparison, without the support of any expert handwriting opinion.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - N R Borkar - Full Document
1