While directing issuance of caste validity certificates to both the petitioner siblings, the Bombay High Court has held that a later addition in different ink could not justify disregarding a material pre-Independence record without investigating the alleged interpolation and its attribution to the claimant. The Court reiterated that greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they have higher probative value in determining caste status than post-Independence records.
Emphasising that a later addition does not, by itself, establish interpolation by the claimant, and applying the Apex Court’s ruling in Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009)10 SCC 268], the Court held that merely identifying an added word was insufficient. The investigation had to establish whether the claimant made the addition or caused it to be made.
The Court noted the absence of an attempt to obtain expert opinion or ascertain whether the petitioner had added his grandfather’s name. This was particularly relevant because the birth record remained in municipal custody and the petitioner denied having any opportunity to tamper with it. The Court also held that inconsistent entries and genealogy omissions did not excuse non-consideration of the only pre-Independence record. Failure to consider a material document rendered the Committee’s orders bad in law.
Briefly, Truptej Dhondiram Kamble and his sister, Tejaswi Dhondiram Kamble, challenged separate orders of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee rejecting their tribe claims. Truptej sought admission to an MBBS course under the Scheduled Tribe category. In support of his claim, he relied on his grandfather’s municipal birth record dated 3 June 1937, recording the caste as “Mahadev Koli”. The Committee disregarded this record because his grandfather’s name, Nagnath, appeared to have been added later in different ink. The State also relied on inconsistent entries concerning paternal relatives and omissions in the genealogy submitted by him.
The Division Bench comprising Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value in determining caste status than post-Independence records. It found that the Committee’s suspicion about the 1937 birth record was not supported by expert evidence. Merely noticing a later addition in different ink did not establish that the petitioner had made it or caused it to be made. The Committee should have investigated this, particularly because the record was in the Municipal Corporation’s custody and the petitioner maintained that he had no opportunity to tamper with it.
The Court further held that adverse entries in other documents and omissions in the genealogy could not justify overlooking the material pre-Independence record, which established the Mahadev Koli claim. Applying Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the Committee needed to investigate the alleged interpolation and its attribution to the claimant, rather than draw an adverse conclusion solely from the addition. It also reaffirmed that failure to consider a material document vitiates an order; the existence of other adverse documents does not excuse that failure.
