Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 17
Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a person’s caste be changed after marrying someone from a different caste? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a teacher who obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate after marrying a person from that caste. The Court clarified that caste is determined by birth and cannot be altered through marriage. This judgment has implications for individuals seeking benefits based on caste status.
Case Background
Sunita Singh, the appellant, was born into an “Agarwal” family, which is categorized as a general caste. She later married Dr. Veer Singh, who belongs to the “Jatav” community, a Scheduled Caste. On 29 November 1991, Sunita Singh obtained a caste certificate from the District Magistrate/Collector of Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh, identifying her as “Jatav.” Based on this certificate and her academic qualifications, she was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Pathankot, Punjab, on 16 December 1993. She served there for approximately 21 years, also completing her M.Ed during this time.
A complaint was filed alleging that Sunita Singh had obtained the Scheduled Caste certificate after her marriage, despite being born into a general category family. Following a preliminary inquiry, the Tehsildar cancelled her caste certificate on 22/27 June 2013, instructing her to return it. The City Magistrate of Bulandshahar informed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan about the cancellation on 18 July 2013. Sunita Singh’s subsequent representation to the District Magistrate on 6 January 2014, seeking reconsideration, was dismissed on 3 September 2014. Her appeals against the cancellation of her caste certificate were also dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, on 27 December 2014 and by the State Level Committee on 15 May 2015. Consequently, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan terminated her services on 18 March 2015. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the termination, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 November 1991 | Caste certificate issued to Sunita Singh, identifying her as “Jatav.” |
| 16 December 1993 | Sunita Singh appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Pathankot. |
| 22/27 June 2013 | Tehsildar cancels Sunita Singh’s caste certificate. |
| 18 July 2013 | City Magistrate informs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan about the cancellation. |
| 6 January 2014 | Sunita Singh requests the District Magistrate to reconsider the cancellation. |
| 3 September 2014 | District Magistrate dismisses Sunita Singh’s representation. |
| 27 December 2014 | Commissioner, Meerut Division, dismisses Sunita Singh’s appeal. |
| 15 May 2015 | State Level Committee dismisses Sunita Singh’s appeal. |
| 18 March 2015 | Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan terminates Sunita Singh’s services. |
| 21 December 2015 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses Sunita Singh’s writ petition. |
| 19 January 2018 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The case began with a complaint against the appellant, Sunita Singh, regarding her caste certificate. The Tehsildar cancelled the certificate, which was upheld by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Meerut Division. The State Level Committee also dismissed her appeal. Subsequently, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed her writ petition, confirming her termination from service. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court noted that the determination of caste is based on birth and cannot be changed by marriage to a person of a different caste.
The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Arguments
The primary issue before the Court was whether Sunita Singh, born into a general category family, could claim Scheduled Caste status based on her marriage to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
- The appellant argued that she had served the Kendriya Vidyalaya for 21 years without any issues, and her caste certificate was not questioned until the complaint was lodged.
- The appellant also argued that the authorities had seen her High School Certificate and marksheet which showed her caste as Agarwal at the time of initial appointment and no questions were raised at that time.
- The respondent argued that the caste certificate was wrongly issued to the appellant and hence the termination was proper.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Long and Unblemished Service |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: Invalid Caste Certificate |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues. However, the main issue before the court was whether the appellant could claim Scheduled Caste status based on her marriage to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether a person born in a general category can claim Scheduled Caste status after marrying a person of Scheduled Caste. | The Court held that caste is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage. The appellant’s caste certificate was therefore invalid. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The Court relied on the principle that caste is determined by birth.
| Authority | How it was used | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Principle of caste determination by birth | The Court relied on this principle to hold that the appellant’s caste could not change due to marriage. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that she had a long and unblemished service record and that no questions were raised about her caste certificate until the complaint was lodged. | The Court acknowledged her long service and the absence of any prior issues but did not find it sufficient to overturn the cancellation of her caste certificate. However, it did use this as a reason for leniency. |
| Respondent’s submission that the caste certificate was wrongly issued and hence the termination was proper. | The Court agreed with this submission and upheld the cancellation of the caste certificate. |
The Court, while upholding the cancellation of the caste certificate, took a lenient view considering the appellant’s 21 years of service and her nearing retirement. The Court converted the order of termination to an order of compulsory retirement.
The Court clarified that this decision should not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The principle of caste determination by birth was followed by the Court to hold that the appellant’s caste could not change due to marriage
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a mix of legal principles and equitable considerations. While the Court affirmed that caste is determined by birth and cannot be altered by marriage, it also considered the appellant’s long, unblemished service record.
The court’s decision was primarily driven by the legal principle that caste is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage. However, the court also took into account the appellant’s 21 years of service and the fact that she was nearing retirement.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legal principle of caste determination | 60% |
| Length of service and absence of prior issues | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court balanced the legal requirement of caste being determined by birth with the equitable consideration of the appellant’s long service.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that caste is determined by birth and cannot be altered by marriage. The Court stated, “There cannot be any dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of scheduled caste.” The Court also noted, “Undoubtedly, the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in scheduled caste.” The Court further clarified, “Merely because her husband is belonging to a scheduled caste category, the appellant should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as scheduled caste.”
Key Takeaways
- Caste is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage.
- A caste certificate obtained based on marriage to a person of a different caste is invalid.
- The Supreme Court may exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to provide equitable relief in appropriate cases.
- This judgment will not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the order of termination of the appellant be converted to an order of compulsory retirement.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that caste is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage. This case reaffirms the settled position of law regarding caste determination.
Conclusion
In the case of Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified that caste is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage. While the Court upheld the cancellation of the appellant’s caste certificate and her termination, it took a lenient view by converting the termination to compulsory retirement, considering her long service. This judgment underscores the importance of birth in determining caste status and reinforces that marriage does not alter one’s caste.