Allowed

Mrunali Mukund Sawardekar v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026WP/17418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a caste certificate for her minor daughter in a mixed-caste marriage. The High Court held that authorities must inquire into upbringing and evidence as per Supreme Court precedents before deciding. The petition was allowed, impugned orders quashed, and the case remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Respondent No.3 directed to contribute fresh certificate application decision based on evidence within 8 weeks.

Mrunali Mukund Sawardekar vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Its… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

25-WP-17418-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.17418 OF 2024

¶4

SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR

¶5

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.01.29 18:37:23 +0530

¶6

Smt.Mrunali Mukund Sawardekar , Age : 36 Years, Occupation : Nil, Residing at : Room No.9, Building No.59/A, Purvanchal Ltd., Gen. Nagari Nivara Parishad Zone – 2, Goregaon (East), Aareymilk Colony, Mumbai : 400 065.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032.

¶10

District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai City, Through its Member Secretary, Having its Office at Panchashil M-1, Ground Floor, Siddharth Girhnirman Sanstha, Labour Camp, Valmiki Road, Matunga, Mumbai : 400019.

¶11

Deputy Collector, Mumbai City , G. South Division, Having its Office at Old Custom House, 404, 4^th Floor, Navin D.D. Build., June Jakat Ghar, Shaheed Bhagatsing Marg, Fort, Mumbai : 1.

¶12

Mr.Pravin Prakash Phutane , Residing at : Room No.421, 4^th Floor, “H” Wing, Sai Shraddha Co-Op. Housing Society, Mulgaon Dongri, Next to Kanakia Wall Street, Behind Dominoz Pizza, Andheri East, Mumbai : 93. ... Respondents

Satish Sangar

1/5

25-WP-17418-2024.doc

*****

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.C.Walimbe, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt.Ashwini A. Purav, AGP, for the Respondents-State.

¶18

¶19

ORAL ORDER : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl.G.P.

¶21

The Respondent No.3 has refused to issue a Caste Certificate to

¶22

the Petitioner’s daughter as belonging to the “Mochi Scheduled Caste”. The Petitioner i.e. Smt.Mrunali Mukund Sawardekar is already issued with a Caste Certificate as belonging to “Mochi Scheduled Caste”.

¶23

It is the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

¶24

Petitioner’s mother belonging to Scheduled Tribe married with the Respondent No.4 who belongs to forward caste. However, on account of matrimonial disputes, the parties decided to obtain divorce by mutual consent. It is the submission of learned counsel that it is the Petitioner who has been taking care of her minor child who has been

¶25

brought up by the Petitioner belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.

Satish Sangar

2/5

25-WP-17418-2024.doc

Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika V/s. State of Gujarat and Others¹ in support of his submission. Paragraph No.55 and paragraph No.56 thereby reads thus:-

¶30

“ 55 . In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a nontribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated as a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by the people outside the community as well.

¶31

56 . In the case in hand the tribal certificate has been taken

¶32

1 (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 400

Satish Sangar

3/5

25-WP-17418-2024.doc

away from the appellant without adverting to any evidence and on the sole ground that he was the son of a Kshatriya father. The orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee, therefore, cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee are, accordingly, set aside and the case is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee to take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence that might be led by the two sides. It is made absolutely clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the appellant or the private contesting respondent.”

¶37

Though learned Addl.G.P. supported the impugned order, we find that in the present case, the competent Authority before taking any decision on the Application made for issuance of Caste Certificate ought to have inquired into the matter in terms of what has been laid down by Their Lordships in the above quoted decision. This has not been done. The Petition is, therefore, allowed.

¶38

The impugned order dated 24^th June 2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Appellate Authority) as well as the order dated 22^nd August 2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the Application for issuance of Caste Certificate of the Petitioner’s minor daughter afresh

Satish Sangar

4/5

25-WP-17418-2024.doc

on its own merits and in accordance with law, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika (cited supra), within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of the order. It is open for the Petitioner to file Additional Affidavit or produce additional materials in support of her claim within a period of two (2) weeks from today. The Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.3 along with copy of this order on 2^nd February 2026 at 11.00 a.m.

¶43

With these observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶44

Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶46

Satish Sangar

¶47

5/5

Mrunali Mukund Sawardekar v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrunali Mukund Sawardekar v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ethics Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shreekrishna Chaitanya Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nanded City Rahivasi Sangh Thru. J. M. Dhumal vs the Pune Municipal Corporation Thru. Commissioner and Ors.

Balu Ganpat Desai vs the State of Maharashtra through the Honble Secretary Urban Development Department

Aaditya Satish Mohole vs Reserve Bank of India

Kshitija Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs the Assistant Assessor and Collector E Ward Office