PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage does not change a person’s caste, rejecting a challenge by accused persons who argued that a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community could no longer claim that status after marrying a man from the Jat community.
Justice Anil Kumar-X dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that the argument that the informant had lost her caste following her marriage had no legal basis.
“Marriage does not change a person’s caste,” the court observed.
The Bench also noted that caste continues to remain unchanged even after a person converts to another religion, stating, “Though a person may change religion, his or her caste remains the same despite conversion to another religion.”
The court refused to interfere with an order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, summoning the appellants to face trial for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act.
Complaint followed earlier FIR
The appeal arose from Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh. The appellants had been summoned under Sections 323, 506, 452 and 354 of the IPC, along with Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act.
They challenged the summoning order dated July 27, 2022, arguing that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to a criminal case initiated by them.
The appellants had lodged FIR No. 442 of 2021 on September 7, 2021, against the informant and her family members under Sections 147, 323, 308, 504 and 506 of the IPC. They claimed that members of their family had also sustained injuries during the incident and that their injury reports were on record.
The appellants therefore argued that the subsequent complaint was retaliatory and should not have resulted in their being summoned.
The State and the informant opposed the appeal, submitting that the incident described in the complaint and the FIR arose from the same altercation on the same day. They alleged that the informant had been assaulted and abused and that caste-based slurs were used during the incident. Three people, including the informant, were also stated to have suffered injuries.
HC: Cross-case does not invalidate rival complaint
The High Court examined the material considered by the Special Judge before issuing the summons. It noted that the trial court had considered the statements of the informant and her witnesses as well as the injury reports.
The Bench rejected the argument that the existence of an earlier FIR automatically made the subsequent complaint unreliable.
“The existence of a cross-case does not constitute a ground to discard a complaint filed by the opposite party on a rival version,” the court held.
It consequently found no illegality in the Special Judge’s decision to summon the appellants. According to the court, competing versions of the same incident, by themselves, were not sufficient grounds to interfere with the summoning order.
Marriage does not alter caste status
The principal issue before the court concerned the informant’s caste status.
The appellants argued that the informant was originally from West Bengal and belonged to an SC/ST community there but had subsequently married a man belonging to the Jat community. They contended that by marrying outside her caste, she could no longer claim the caste status acquired by birth.
They further alleged that she had concealed her marriage while continuing to identify herself as belonging to the SC/ST community. On this basis, they argued that the SC/ST Act could not be invoked against them.
The High Court rejected the contention, holding that a person’s caste does not change merely because they marry someone belonging to another caste.
The Bench reiterated: “Marriage does not change a person’s caste.”
The court also referred to the position that caste remains unchanged despite conversion to another religion, using it to reinforce its conclusion that marriage cannot, by itself, deprive a person of their caste status by birth.
Appeal dismissed
Having rejected both principal grounds raised by the appellants — the existence of the earlier cross-case and the claim that the informant’s caste had changed following her marriage — the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Special Judge’s order.
The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The operative portion of the order stated: “Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
