The Bombay High Court has dismissed an 18-year-old student’s plea seeking recognition as a member of the Scheduled Caste (SC) ‘Chambhar’ community, observing that he had not faced any social discrimination or deprivation that typically justifies such a claim.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale on Thursday rejected the writ petition filed by Sujal Birwadkar challenging a decision by the Raigad District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated April 15, 2024, which had refused him a caste validity certificate.
The petitioner had sought the certificate based on his mother’s caste, claiming he belonged to the Chambhar SC community. His mother, a Central Police Force employee, had custody of him after divorcing his father, a member of the ‘Hindu Agri’ community — a non-SC caste — in 2016. The petitioner had changed his name from Sujal Mokal to Sujal Birwadkar and, in 2023, obtained a caste certificate from the competent authority, which was later rejected by the scrutiny committee after a detailed vigilance inquiry.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nikhil Adkine argued that the student was raised solely by his mother and had no support from his father. He submitted that the petitioner faced social disadvantages and deserved recognition under the SC category.
However, opposing the petition, government pleader B.V. Samant relied on the vigilance inquiry reports, which noted that the petitioner had not faced any hardship or discrimination growing up. The reports also mentioned that his mother had a stable government job, did not claim maintenance, and that the petitioner had attended good educational institutions including Kendriya Vidyalaya.
The court emphasized that in mixed-caste parentage cases, the onus is on the claimant to prove that they were brought up in SC environments and faced the disadvantages associated with such identity. Citing an apex court ruling, the HC noted that merely being born to an SC mother is insufficient unless the claimant can show they endured discrimination and marginalisation.
“Nothing on record shows the petitioner suffered any deprivation or humiliation,” the court held, dismissing the petition.
