Bombay HC – Tribe Claim Cannot Be Rejected on Suspicion of Interpolation
Judgment dated of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.11653 of 2023 of Truptej Dhndiram Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others with Writ Petition No.425 of 2021
Invalidation of Tribe Claim on Guesswork of Different Ink – Caste Scrutiny Committee Is Not Handwriting Expert
Pre-Independence Record Cannot Be Rejected on Mere Suspicion of the Caste Scrutiny Committee
Bombay HC Protects Tribe Claim of Student from Unsubstantiated Allegation of Interpolation in 1937 record
Different Ink Is Not Proof of Tampering by Student Claiming Tribe Clim Validation
Prior to appearing for NEET examination, in 2021 the petitioner had applied for verification of caste claim from Scheduled Tribe Mahadeo Koli category and submitted the documents in support of her claim.
The Vigilance Committee, on 27th July 2023, after carrying out due investigation based on the documents submitted by the Petitioner as well as the records inspected by them, submitted their detailed Report. The Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee issued Notice on 10th August 2023 to the Petitioner directing him to remain present before the committee on 17th August 2023 for the hearing of his Application.
- The Petitioner on the stipulated date, viz. 17th August 2023, filed his detailed written notes of arguments / reply to the Notice dated 10th August 2023 and the Vigilance Cell Committee Report dated 27th July 2023.
- The Petitioner submitted his genealogy and documents in support of his Tribe Claim, including the Birth Report of the Municipal Corporation, Pandharpur City, of the Petitioner’s grandfather, namely Nagnath, son of Kondabai @ Kom Babaji Kamble wherein the birth entry was recorded as 3rd June 1937.
However, the Committee has rejected the tribe claim vide an order dated 21.8.2023 on the ground of addition of “Nagnath” name in different ink and on subsequent date i.e. few days after the entry recorded on 3.6.1937 i.e. 8th June 1937.
HELD that judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shri. Santosh Ramling Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.5. This Court in the said judgment has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayanna (supra) in the context of the Scrutiny Committee having treated the school entry as suspicious on the ground that it appeared to have been written later in the same handwriting, but with different ink. It has been consistently held that without a proper expert opinion, the Scrutiny Committee is not a handwriting expert.
In the present case, there is a pre-Independence document, which the Petitioner had relied upon before the Scrutiny Committee, namely the birth record of the Petitioner’s grandfather Nagnath, son of Kondabai Kom Babaji Kamble, wherein the birth entry was recorded as 3rd June 1937. A view has been taken by the Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee that the entry of the Petitioner’s grandfather had been interpolated, as it was subsequently added and in a different ink from the earlier entry in the birth record. 28. It is pertinent to note that such view taken by the Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee is not backed by expert evidence. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sayanna (supra) that the Vigilance Committee Report on which the Scrutiny Committee has placed reliance, is required to establish that the interpolation in the document is at the hands of the person, who is taking benefit of the entry in the document, namely the Appellant in that case and the Petitioner in the present case. It is insufficient for the Police Inspector to merely state that the word has been added, but it is for the Police Inspector to state that the word has been interpolated by the Appellant. Further, whether the interpolation by addition has taken place, can be stated by the handwriting expert or by comparison of admitted letters of a person with the disputed one. In that case, the Supreme Court had noted that it was an admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee never attempted to get an expert’s opinion nor itself had compared the disputed letters with the admitted one of the Appellant.
The Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee ought to have carried out the exercise of finding out whether the entry of the Petitioner’s grandfather’s name had been subsequently added by the Petitioner, particularly, in view of the birth record lying with the Municipal Corporation, Pandharpur City, and the defence taken by the Petitioner that he had no opportunity to tamper with the same. Accordingly, the disregarding of the pre-Independence document is, in our view, erroneous.
Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee could not have based their conclusion on other entries in the documents produced by the Petitioner, which they opine ‘suffer from interpolations’ and reference has been made to the genealogy tree of the Petitioner, which does not contain certain of the blood relatives of 16/18 Uploaded on – 22/10/2026 Downloaded on – 26/10/2026 13:33:37 Jt-WP-11653-23&425-21.doc the Petitioner, namely the Petitioner’s grandfather’s mother Kondabai @ kom Babaji Kamble, whilst overlooking the only pre-Independence document, which itself establishes the Petitioner’s claim as belonging to Mahadev Koli Scheduled Community Tribe.
Judgments in Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2009(10) SCC 268, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2025 SCC Online SC 1679), Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & Others (2012 (1) SCC 113 and Minakshi Manohar Gholpa Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (Writ Petition No.2204 of 2014 dated 28.01.2015) and Shri Santosh Ramling Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.in Writ Petition No.2383 of 2026 dated 23.7.2026.
