Child Of Inter-Caste Marriage Not SC Without Proving Social Disability | Bombay HC Rejects Chambhar Caste Claim Despite Mother’s Status | Says No Discrimination Or Deprivation Faced
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale dismissed a petition seeking recognition of Scheduled Caste status based on the maternal lineage of an 18-year-old student. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish the requisite conditions mandated for recognition as a member of the Scheduled Caste community. It directed that the decision of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had earlier denied the caste validity certificate, be upheld. The petitioner had challenged the committee's judgment on the grounds of maternal Scheduled Caste heritage and post-divorce custody with the mother. However, the Court declined to accept these grounds, concluding that the petitioner had not suffered any of the social disadvantages or humiliations typically associated with Scheduled Caste status and instead had benefited from an upbringing free from deprivation. The Court ultimately dismissed the petition in its entirety.
The petitioner, aged 18, sought judicial intervention for quashing the order dated 15 April 2024 passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, and for a declaration that he belongs to the 'Chambhar' Scheduled Caste community from his mother's side. He also sought the issuance of a caste validity certificate in accordance with that declaration.
The petitioner was born on 14 June 2006 to Santosh Mahadeo Mokal, who belongs to the 'Hindu Agri' caste (not a Scheduled Caste), and Mangala, who belongs to the 'Chambhar' community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste. The parents were married on 22 April 2004 at Pali, District Raigad, and later divorced through a decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag on 2 July 2016.
At the time of the petitioner’s admission into primary school, his mother recorded his caste as 'Hindu Agri,' i.e., his father's caste, in school records. Subsequently, after the divorce, while admitting the petitioner into secondary school at Kendriya Vidyalaya, ISP Nehru Nagar, Nashik Road, the mother listed his caste as 'Chambhar' and initiated a name change from 'Sujal Santosh Mokal' to 'Sujal Mangala Birwadkar.'
In the academic year 2022-23, during his studies in the 11th standard at Navneet Junior College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Mumbai Central, the petitioner's mother applied for issuance of a 'Chambhar' caste certificate. The competent authority issued the caste certificate on 7 February 2023, confirming that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. Based on this, the principal of his college forwarded the proposal for verification to the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.
The Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell, which conducted inquiries and submitted three reports. Following these inquiries and upon considering the statements and documents submitted, the Committee rejected the petitioner’s caste claim and refused to issue the validity certificate.
The petitioner, through learned counsel Mr. Nikhil V. Adkine, contended before the Court that the Committee’s findings were erroneous and unsupported by facts and evidence. Counsel argued that the petitioner had been raised solely by his mother after the divorce and that the father had not played any financial or emotional role in the upbringing. It was further submitted that the petitioner had endured deprivations, indignities, and humiliation typically associated with Scheduled Caste identity.
The petitioner asserted that custody had always remained with the mother, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, and thus the petitioner should be deemed to belong to the same community for the purpose of legal and educational benefits.
On behalf of the State and the respondents, Additional Government Pleader Mr. B.V. Samant presented arguments based on the findings of the Vigilance Inquiry Reports. Mr. Samant stated that the petitioner’s father had submitted a statement indicating multiple attempts to engage with the petitioner, which were denied by the mother. He also noted that the petitioner’s mother was employed in the Central Police, Mumbai Port, and had a stable income, rendering financial support from the father unnecessary.
Furthermore, it was submitted that during the majority of the petitioner’s education, including primary years, his caste was recorded as 'Hindu Agri,' the caste of the father. Mr. Samant maintained that the petitioner had taken full advantage of this upper-caste identity in his formative years.
The respondents relied on the petitioner’s academic records, statements of maternal relatives, and the socio-economic condition of the family to argue that there was no demonstrable experience of discrimination, backwardness, or humiliation stemming from Scheduled Caste identity.
The Division Bench scrutinised the Vigilance Reports and recorded the following findings: "The statements of the witnesses recorded indicate that the Petitioner’s mother was in continuous service in the Central Police Mumbai Port."
"The Petitioner took his secondary education in Kendriya Vidyalaya."
"The written statement of the Police Patil also indicates that even his maternal relatives owned property and are engaged in doing business."
"The Petitioner’s mother had recorded his caste as 'Hindu Agri' in his school, which can be seen in the School Leaving Certificate."
"No evidence was brought on record by the Petitioner to demonstrate that by virtue of his mother being a member of the Scheduled Caste, he suffered deprivations, indignities, humiliation and any other challenges normally suffered by a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste community."
"His maternal grandparents also do not appear to be living in a backward area nor is their living condition bereft of basic necessities, food, clean water, sanitation and health care."
The Court referred to the precedent laid down in Swanubhuti Jivraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online Bombay 322: "For a person born to parents belonging to different castes, especially when the father belongs to the upper caste community and the mother to a Scheduled Caste community, he has to demonstrate that he was treated shabbily; that he suffered humiliation and insults on account of his mother being a Scheduled Caste person; he was deprived of opportunities in education and employment on account of his mother being a Scheduled Caste person, etc."
Applying this test, the Court found: "Although the entire nurturing and upbringing of the Petitioner has been done by his mother, it does not appear to be that of deprivation."
"He had the advantage of his father’s upper caste during his schooling days and his caste was recorded as 'Hindu Agri' in his school records."
"There is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner’s mother suffered any humiliation, which was manifested onto the Petitioner."
"He did not suffer any handicap and did have an advantageous start in life."
The Court concluded the judgment with the following directions: "In the light of the peculiar facts as above and taking into account the documents before us, it is clear that the Petitioner had good education, was never discriminated against and did not suffer any disadvantages on account of his mother belonging to a Scheduled Caste community."
"He did not suffer any handicap and did have an advantageous start in life. We are thus, unable to accept that he is eligible to be declared as a person from the 'Chambhar' community."
"We are not inclined to allow the Petition. Petition is dismissed."
"Rule is accordingly discharged."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil V. Adkine, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: Sujal Mangala Birwadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:24351-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No.13016 of 2024
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
