NEW DELHI: In an uncommon ruling intended to promote the education of a minor girl, the Supreme Court on Monday sanctioned the issuance of a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate based on the ‘Adi Dravida’ caste of her mother, who is married to a non-SC individual. This decision comes even though the court has yet to resolve a series of petitions contesting the principle that a child inherits the caste of their father. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to consider a challenge to a Madras High Court order that mandated the issuance of an SC caste certificate to the girl from Puducherry, solely on the basis that her educational prospects might be jeopardized without it. “We are keeping the question of law open,” stated the bench. However, the subsequent remarks made by the Chief Justice could spark significant discussion. He remarked, “In light of changing times, why should a caste certificate not be issued based on the mother’s caste?” This implies that children born from the union of an SC woman and an upper caste man, and raised in an upper caste family environment, would also qualify for an SC certificate. The mother had approached the tahsildar to request SC certificates for her three children—two daughters and a son—based on her caste certificate, as her husband had resided at her parents’ home since their marriage. In her application, she asserted that her parents and grandparents were members of the Hindu Adi Dravida community. The presidential notifications dated March 5, 1964, and February 17, 2002, along with the directives from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, stipulate that a person’s eligibility for a caste certificate is primarily determined by their father’s caste and his residential status within the jurisdiction of the state or Union Territory. The Supreme Court had previously established that the father’s caste is the determining factor in the case of Punit Rai Vs Dinesh Chaudhary [(2003) 8 SCC 204], which pertained to reservations. The Supreme Court had stated that the determining factor for establishing a person’s caste is the caste of the father according to customary Hindu Law, and in the absence of statutory law, individuals would inherit their caste from their father rather than their mother. In the 2012 ruling of ‘Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs Gujarat’, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stated, “The caste of an individual born from an inter-caste marriage or a union between a tribal and a non-tribal cannot be assessed without considering the relevant facts of the case.” It further noted, “In the context of an inter-caste marriage or a marriage involving a tribal and a non-tribal, there may exist a presumption that the child inherits the caste of the father. This presumption is likely to be more pronounced when the husband in such a marriage belongs to a forward caste.” “However, this presumption is neither definitive nor unchallengeable, and the child from such a union is entitled to present evidence demonstrating that he/she was raised by a mother from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The mere fact of being the offspring of a forward caste father does not guarantee any advantages in life; rather, the child may experience the same deprivations, indignities, humiliations, and disadvantages as any other member of the community to which the mother belongs. Furthermore, the child is consistently regarded as a member of the community associated with the mother, both by that community and by individuals outside of it,” the ruling concluded.
