Supreme Court Upholds ‘Mana’ Tribe Claim, Emphasizes Pre-Constitution Documents: Priya Pramod Gajbe vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2023. Citation: 2023 INSC 663. Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J. Can a Scheduled Tribe claim be invalidated if the applicant’s current traits don’t match traditional tribal characteristics? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, emphasizing the importance of pre-constitutional documents and cautioning against the sole reliance on affinity tests. This judgment clarifies the criteria for determining Scheduled Tribe status, particularly in cases where there are discrepancies in historical records and modern cultural practices. The bench consisted of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Priya Pramod Gajbe, secured admission to the first year of the MBBS degree course in 2016-17 under the Scheduled Tribe category, claiming to belong to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. Her case was referred to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Thane (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scrutiny Committee’). The Scrutiny Committee invalidated her claim on December 12, 2017, citing her failure to satisfy the Affinity Test during a vigilance inquiry and her inability to prove that she originally belonged to an area where the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe resides.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant challenged the Scrutiny Committee’s order before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court dismissed the petition on December 22, 2018, upholding the Scrutiny Committee’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the determination of Scheduled Tribe status, particularly concerning the ‘Mana’ tribe in Maharashtra. The court considered the following:

• The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, which lists the tribes recognized as Scheduled Tribes in various states.
• The importance of pre-constitutional documents in establishing tribal status.
• The role and limitations of the Affinity Test in determining tribal affiliation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that pre-constitutional documents showing the appellant’s ancestors as ‘Mana’ should be given the highest probative value.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and Others, the counsel submitted that once pre-constitutional documents establish tribal status, a reference to the Vigilance Cell is unnecessary.
• It was contended that the Affinity Test should not be the sole determinant of tribal status, especially in cases of migration and modernization.

State of Maharashtra’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court rightly concluded that the appellant failed to prove her ‘Mana’ tribe status.
• The state argued that since some documents showed the appellant’s forefathers’ entries as ‘Mani’, and not ‘Mana’, it was necessary for the appellant to pass the Affinity Test.
• The State relied on the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Ku. Yogita v. State of Maharashtra and Others, arguing that despite the removal of area restrictions in 1976, the candidate must prove their family’s original area of residence.

Intervenor’s Arguments:

• The intervenor supported the arguments of the State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need for stringent verification of tribal claims.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in invalidating the appellant’s claim based on the Affinity Test and area restrictions.
2. Whether pre-constitutional documents establishing the appellant’s tribal status should be given higher probative value.
3. Whether the Affinity Test can be the sole criterion for rejecting a tribal claim.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 326]* to hold that pre-constitutional documents have the highest probative value and reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted.
• The Court referred to Kumari Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241]* for the principle that pre-Constitution documents have the highest probative value in determining caste claims.
• The Court followed Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others [(2012) 1 SCC 113]* to clarify that the Affinity Test should not be used as a litmus test and should only be used to corroborate documentary evidence.
• The Court disagreed with Ku. Yogita v. State of Maharashtra and Others [Writ Petition No.6103 of 2010 decided on 15.09.2016]* regarding the relevance of area restrictions, stating that they have been removed for the ‘Mana’ tribe.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the presence of pre-constitutional documents that indicated the appellant’s ancestors belonged to the ‘Mana’ tribe. The Court emphasized that these documents hold the highest probative value. The Court also considered the fact that the Affinity Test cannot be a litmus test, especially in cases where families have migrated or modernized. The Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court had erred in giving too much weight to the Affinity Test and in considering area restrictions that no longer apply to the ‘Mana’ tribe.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• “It could thus be seen that this Court has held that documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value.”
• “It has also been held that 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.”
• “Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.”

The Court rejected the argument that the appellant’s current traits not matching traditional tribal characteristics should invalidate her claim. The Court also rejected the High Court’s view that area restrictions still apply to the ‘Mana’ tribe.

The Court unanimously held that the appellant belonged to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Pre-constitutional documents hold the highest probative value in determining Scheduled Tribe status.
• The Affinity Test should not be the sole criterion for rejecting a tribal claim. It should only be used to corroborate documentary evidence.
• Area restrictions for the ‘Mana’ tribe in Maharashtra have been removed and are no longer applicable.
• Scrutiny Committees and High Courts should give due weight to pre-constitutional documents and not rely solely on the Affinity Test.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue the validity certificate to the appellant within one month from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that pre-constitutional documents hold the highest probative value in determining Scheduled Tribe status, and the Affinity Test should not be the sole criterion for rejecting a claim. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases such as Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti and Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims. It clarifies that the focus should be on historical evidence and not solely on current cultural practices. This judgment also sets aside the High Court’s view regarding area restrictions for the ‘Mana’ tribe.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court. The Court held that the appellant, Priya Pramod Gajbe, belongs to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, emphasizing the importance of pre-constitutional documents and cautioning against the sole reliance on affinity tests. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases and provides clarity on the criteria for determining Scheduled Tribe status.