Caste is determined by birth and cannot be changed by marriage with a person of scheduled caste.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Sunita Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 487/2018) decided on 19.01.2018 that merely a woman is marrying someone belonging to a scheduled caste category, that woman should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as scheduled caste.

Challenge

The complaint was lodged against the appellant to the effect that she was born in “Agarwal” family (general caste category) and after her marriage with a person of scheduled caste, she obtained a caste certificate in question. The Tehsildar and further City Magistrate cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and asked the appellant to return the caste certificate issued earlier to the appellant.

The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the Tehsildar, City Magistrate were right while cancelling the caste certificate issued to the appellant treating her as “Jatav”, and whether the Hon’ble High Court was correct while terminating the appellant from her service on the grounds of getting job on the basis of caste certificate issued.

Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while upholding the decision of the Tehsildar and City Magistrate held that just because a woman from “General” category marries someone from the category of “Schedule Caste”, will not entitle her to get a caste certificate treating her as “Jatav”. 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. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted.

Further, in order to show some leniency towards the appellant, because she did not obtain the caste certificate upon fraud, the Supreme Court held that “The order of termination from service” passed against the appellant shall be treated as “the order of compulsory retirement”, however the same shall not be treated as a precedent.