Recently, the division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice JB Pardiwala, observed that  'affinity test' cannot be applied as a litmus test during scrutiny of caste claims.

The bench further observed -

"If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the per Constitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order", the bench of Justices observed.

Case Brief -

In the said matter,  the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the applicant on the following grounds:

(1) She failed to satisfy the Affinity Test conducted during the vigilance inquiry.

(2) She failed to prove that she originally belongs to an area where the people of Mana Scheduled Tribe reside. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this order.

During the Court hearing, the bench gave referennce of  Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (2012) and observed -

"This court has held that while applying the Affinity Test which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been held that a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that the claim by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits etc. It has been held that though the Affinity Test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence, it should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim.."

The court noted that there is no reason to discard the pre-Constitutional document of the period as early as 1924. It said:

"Documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value. If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the perConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order."

After the complete arguement, the Court declared that the appellant belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

Case Title - Priya Pramod Gajbe vs State of Maharashtra