Bombay High Court: ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ Were Interchangeable Terms Based on Historical, Anthropological, and Legal Evidence; Quashes Scrutiny Committee’s Refusal to Validate ‘Tokre Koli’ Claim

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Bombay quashed the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee’s decision, which had refused to validate the petitioner’s claim as belonging to the ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe. It directed the issuance of the tribe validity certificate, holding that:

• The evidence supported the petitioner’s claim.
• Pre-constitutional records listing the petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Koli Dhor’ did not contradict their eligibility under ‘Tokre Koli.’

The Court emphasized the principle of preponderance of probability and directed the Committee to act accordingly.

Facts:

1. Background:
   • The petitioner sought validation of his Scheduled Tribe certificate for ‘Tokre Koli’ under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2001.
   • The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee rejected his claim, asserting that the pre-constitutional records describing his ancestors as ‘Koli Dhor’ were inconsistent with the tribe’s official designation.
2. Evidence Presented:
   • The petitioner submitted extensive documentation, including:
     • Pre-constitutional records dating back to 1919, listing his ancestors as ‘Koli Dhor.’
     • Post-constitutional records, including school entries from 1952 onwards, which described them as ‘Tokre Koli.’
   • The petitioner argued that ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ were synonymous, both being listed under Serial No. 28 of the Scheduled Tribe Order.
3. Committee’s Grounds for Rejection:
   • The Committee relied on isolated school records (from 1958 and 1967) that appeared altered.
   • It treated the terms ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ as distinct and irreconcilable, dismissing the petitioner’s claim.

Issues:

1. Whether pre-constitutional entries describing ancestors as ‘Koli Dhor’ are inconsistent with the claim of ‘Tokre Koli.’
2. Whether the Committee’s reliance on altered school records was legally valid.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Equivalence of ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’:
   • The petitioner cited various precedents and government documents that identified ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ as interchangeable terms, used historically and anthropologically.
   • Both tribes are listed under Serial No. 28 of the Scheduled Tribe Order, making the claim valid.
2. Pre-Constitutional Records:
   • The petitioner emphasized that pre-constitutional records held greater evidentiary value than post-constitutional records.
   • These records consistently described his forefathers as ‘Koli Dhor,’ which could not be treated as a contradiction to the ‘Tokre Koli’ claim.
3. No Benefit from Distinction:
   • The petitioner argued that there was no additional benefit to be gained by claiming ‘Tokre Koli’ over ‘Koli Dhor,’ as both enjoyed the same status under the Scheduled Tribe list.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Rejection of Synonymity:
   • The State argued that ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ were distinct tribes, and pre-constitutional entries referring to ‘Koli Dhor’ could not substantiate a claim to ‘Tokre Koli.’
2. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:
   • The State relied on State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that Scheduled Tribe claims must adhere strictly to the tribe designations in the Constitutional Order.
   • The State argued that the petitioner’s claim contradicted these precedents.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Synonymity of ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’:
   • The Court noted that both ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ were listed under the same Serial No. 28 of the Constitutional Order.
   • Historical and anthropological records supported the petitioner’s argument that the two terms were interchangeable.
2. Principle of Preponderance of Probability:
   • The Court held that Scheduled Tribe claims should be evaluated based on the principle of preponderance of probability rather than strict proof.
   • Pre-constitutional records were deemed more probative, as they were created before the Constitutional recognition of Scheduled Tribes.
3. Distinguishing Precedents:
   • The Court distinguished the present case from Milind and Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, noting that those cases involved claimants attempting to include sub-castes or tribes not listed in the Constitutional Order.
   • Here, both ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ were explicitly listed under the same entry.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to several precedents:

• Samriddhi Yogesh Savale v. State of Maharashtra: Held that ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ were synonymous and interchangeable.
• Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims: Affirmed the higher probative value of pre-constitutional records.
• Milind and Mana Adim Jamat Mandal: Distinguished based on the specific facts of this case.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. No Contradiction in Tribe Designations:
   • The Court found that ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ were interchangeable terms based on historical, anthropological, and legal evidence.
2. Pre-constitutional Records:
   • The Court gave significant weight to pre-constitutional records describing the petitioner’s ancestors as ‘Koli Dhor.’
3. Committee’s Error:
   • The Court ruled that the Committee’s rejection of the claim based on altered school entries was arbitrary.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s decision. It directed the immediate issuance of a tribe validity certificate to the petitioner.

Implications:

This decision reinforces that:

1. Scheduled Tribe claims must be evaluated in light of historical and contextual factors, with pre-constitutional records given higher probative value.
2. Tribes listed under the same serial number in the Constitutional Order should be treated synonymously unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Also Read – Orissa High Court Quashes Faulty Seniority List, Orders Recasting for Fair Promotion in Textile Department