Bombay High Court: In the present writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of the order passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Scrutiny Committee) rejecting the petitioner’s application for caste certificate and pursued a declaration and validity certificate that he belonged to ‘Chambhar’ Scheduled Caste community of his mother’s side. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., upheld the order of the Scrutiny Committee after no evidence was brought on record to demonstrate that by virtue of his mother being a member of the Scheduled Caste, the petitioner faced any deprivation or disadvantage.
Background:
Rejection of issuance of Scheduled Caste by District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
The petitioner’s parents were married on 22-4-2004. His father belonged to ‘Hindu Agri’ caste, which was not a Scheduled Caste while his mother belonged to ‘Chambhar’ community, which was recognised as a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was born on 14-6-2006. Both the parents were serving in the Central Armed Police Force and were later divorced by an order dated 2-7-2016 after a matrimonial discord arose between them.
At the time of admitting the petitioner in the primary school, his mother recorded his caste as ‘Hindu Agri’ which was his father’s caste. However, after the divorce while admitting the petitioner in the secondary school, his mother recorded his caste as ‘Chambhar’ under the Scheduled Caste community and also got his name changed. The petitioner’s mother applied for a certificate of ‘Chambhar’ caste for him when he was studying in the 11th standard. The Competent Authority issued the certificate, certifying that the petitioner belonged to ‘Chambhar’ community. The school Principal forwarded the proposal for verification of his caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee which was then referred to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry and verification of documents. After submissions of the vigilance reports, the Scrutiny Committee via the impugned order dated 15-4-2024, rejected the petitioner’s caste claim and refused to grant validity certificate.
The petitioner filed a petition in the Court after the rejection of caste claim. The petitioner’s counsel argued that findings in the impugned order were contrary to facts of the case and evidence on record. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s father although belonged to an upper caste had never looked after and cared for the petitioner or incurred any expenses for the petitioner. The petitioner’s custody always remained with his mother after the divorce, and he did not have any advantages in his life and suffered deprivations and indignities and humiliation being a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
The respondent’s counsel referred to the Vigilance Inquiry Report along with statements recorded of persons during inquiries, where it was pointed out that the petitioner’s father made many attempts to meet and talk to him, but his mother did not allow him to do so. The petitioner’s father also offered innumerable opportunities to him.
It was further submitted that the petitioner’s mother was working in Central Police Mumbai Port and earned a substantial income to support herself and the petitioner and furthrmore she did not claim maintenance from the petitioner’s father after their divorce. The written statement of the Police Patil also indicated that even his maternal relatives owned property and were engaged in doing business The counsel submitted that the petitioner’s father belonged to the upper caste community and during the petitioner’s entire schooling years, he was availing all the opportunities available to the upper caste. The counsel thus, sought dismissal of the petition.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to Swanubhuti Jivraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 Online Bom 322 and held that for a person born to parents who belonged to different castes, especially when the father belonged to the upper caste community and the mother to a Scheduled Caste community, must demonstrate that he was treated shabbily, suffered humiliation and insults on account of his mother being a Scheduled Caste person. That, also, he was deprived of opportunities in education and employment on account of his mother being a Scheduled Caste person, for him to be declared as a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste community.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s entire nurturing and upbringing, although had been done by his mother, did not appear to be that of deprivation. The Court observed that the petitioner had the advantage of his father’s upper caste during his schooling days, and his caste was recorded as ‘Hindu Agri’ in school records. The Court further added that the petitioner’s mother throughout her career continued to be employed by the Central Police Mumbai Port and there was nothing on record to indicate that his mother suffered any humiliation, which was manifested onto the petitioner.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition and finally concluded that the petitioner had good education, was never discriminated against and did not suffer any disadvantages on account of his mother belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. He did not suffer any handicap and did have an advantageous start in life. The Court found no merit in the claim that the petitioner was eligible to be declared as a person from the ‘Chambhar’ community.
[Sujal Mangala Birwadkar v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 13016 of 2024, decided on 20-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Nikhil V. Adkine
For Respondents 1 and 2: B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader
