Summary and Analysis of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

YOGESH MADHAV MAKALWAD vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 27410 of 2024; Decided on August 12, 2025)

Citation: YOGESH MADHAV MAKALWAD vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., 2025 INSC 964 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Relevant Legal Framework

The judgment applies:

• Precedents on Caste Validation:
  Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims (2012) 1 SCC 113:
  Lays down parameters for evaluating caste claims, emphasizing pre-Independence documents and cautious use of the affinity test.
  Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 16 SCC 415:
  Reiterates that the affinity test is not conclusive and cannot be the sole basis for rejecting caste claims.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Yogesh Madhav Makalwad (medical aspirant claiming ST status as "Koli Mahadev").
  Respondents: State of Maharashtra & Scrutiny Committee (rejected appellant’s caste claim).

• Key Events:
  1943: Appellant’s grandfather’s school record lists caste as "Koli Mahadev".
  1975/1979: Appellant’s father and uncle’s school records confirm same caste.
  2005/2010: Appellant’s school records consistently list "Koli Mahadev".
  2019: Scrutiny Committee invalidated appellant’s caste certificate despite documentary evidence.
  2024: Bombay High Court upheld the invalidation.

• Core Issue:
  Whether the Scrutiny Committee and High Court erred in rejecting appellant’s "Koli Mahadev" caste claim?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Errors by Lower Authorities

• Ignored Pre-Independence Document:
  Appellant submitted his grandfather’s 1943 school record (pre-Independence) showing "Koli Mahadev".
  Scrutiny Committee and High Court discounted this crucial evidence citing "inconclusive handwriting opinion" about possible interpolation.

• Over-Reliance on Affinity Test:
  Appellant allegedly failed to describe tribal customs (e.g., rituals, burial practices).
  Authorities used this as grounds for rejection despite Supreme Court precedents limiting the weight of affinity tests.

B. Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis

1. Primacy of Pre-Independence Documents:
   Citing Anand (2012), the Court emphasized:
   "Pre-Independence documents furnish a higher probative value for caste status compared to post-Independence documents."
   The 1943 record was physically examined by the Court; entries were in consistent ink/handwriting with no evidence of tampering.

2. Affinity Test Not Decisive:
   Citing Anand (2012) and Maharashtra Adiwasi (2023):
   Affinity test cannot be a litmus test due to modernization, migration, and assimilation of tribal communities.
   Failure to recall customs is insufficient to invalidate claims supported by documentary evidence.

C. Key Findings

• Documentary Evidence Overlooked:
  The 1943 record was corroborated by father’s/uncle’s school records (1970s) and appellant’s own records (2005–2010).

• Flawed Application of Law:
  Authorities ignored binding precedents by:
  (i) Dismissing pre-Independence proof,
  (ii) Treating affinity test as a standalone rejection ground.

• Prejudice to Appellant:
  Invalidating the caste claim blocked appellant’s NEET-based medical admission despite scoring 334/720.

D. Final Ruling

• Appeal Allowed:
  Scrutiny Committee’s order (24.06.2019) and High Court’s judgment (23.07.2024) set aside.

• Caste Validity Restored:
  Appellant declared a member of "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe.
  Scrutiny Committee directed to issue validity certificate within 6 weeks.

• Critical Observation:
  "Tribal identity must be adjudicated on historical documents, not unrealistic expectations of cultural purity in a modernized society."
  (Paragraph 13, Judgment)