Himachal Pradesh HC Sets Aside Discharge Under SC/ST Act | Says Caste Is Assigned By Birth, Not Altered By Marriage Into Scheduled Caste
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla set aside an order of discharge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the caste of a person does not change upon marriage. The Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider whether a case for framing of charges is made out, without being influenced by the earlier conclusion that the accused had acquired Scheduled Caste status through marriage.
The Court clarified that an individual not born into a Scheduled Caste does not become a member of such a caste by marrying a person who belongs to it. On this basis, the earlier order discharging the accused from charges under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was held to be legally unsustainable.
The Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court to decide afresh regarding the framing of charges. It also stated that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the revision petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the case.
The revision petition was filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the discharge of the accused by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST Act, Shimla, vide order dated 09.05.2022. The Trial Court had discharged the accused of an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the ground that the accused, having married a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, had herself become a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
The police had presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for alleged offences under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. According to the Trial Court, since the accused was married to a member of a Scheduled Caste, she could not have committed an offence under the said provision which, as per law, is applicable only to persons who are not members of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
This finding was assailed by the State in the present revision petition, asserting that the Trial Court erred in its interpretation of the law. It was contended that caste is assigned at birth and does not change by marriage. Therefore, a person not born in a Scheduled Caste cannot become a member of such a caste merely by marrying into it. The State submitted that the entire premise of the discharge order was flawed and unsustainable in law.
Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General representing the petitioner/State, submitted that the accused was wrongly discharged. He argued that the caste of a person is immutable and does not undergo transformation by virtue of marriage. Accordingly, the respondent could not claim the status of a Scheduled Caste and could very well be tried under the SC/ST Act.
On the other hand, Mr. Y.P. Sood, counsel for the respondent, fairly conceded the legal position that a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste does not become a member upon marriage. However, he prayed that the accused be granted an opportunity to demonstrate before the Trial Court that no offence was made out. He sought a direction to the Trial Court to hear the parties and determine whether charges should be framed.
The Trial Court had placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545. Based on this judgment, the Trial Court concluded that the accused, by marrying a Scheduled Caste individual, had acquired Scheduled Caste status.
However, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court decision in Valsamma Paul did not lay down that a person acquires Scheduled Caste status by marriage. Instead, it categorically stated that such a person would not be entitled to reservation. The Court found that the Trial Court had misinterpreted the judgement.
The High Court also referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Kaliya Perumal v. State, 1997 SCC OnLine Mad 1034: 1998 Cri LJ 1467. In that case, it was held that the marriage of a woman would not result in a change of her caste. The judgment observed that: "A candidate who had the advantageous start in life, being born in a forward caste and having a march of advantageous life, but is transplanted in a backwards caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Art. 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be."
The Bombay High Court in Rajendra Shrivastava v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 116, held that: "When a woman born in a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe marries a person belonging to a forward caste, her caste by birth does not change by virtue of the marriage."
The Karnataka High Court in Bhimappa Jantakal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/2216/2022, echoed the same principle. The Court recorded: "A woman belonging to Scheduled Caste getting married to a man belonging to forward caste will not lose her caste status as one belonging to Scheduled Caste."
Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Sakharam Sawant, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 180, which held: "A woman not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe marrying a person born into a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not become a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe merely due to the label of marriage."
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh examined the issue closely and observed: "The caste is assigned at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person."
In evaluating the Trial Court’s reliance on Valsamma Paul, the High Court stated: "This judgment does not lay down that a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste will acquire the status of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage; rather, it categorically lays down that she will not be entitled to reservation."
The Court noted that Valsamma Paul was misapplied by the Trial Court and recorded that: "A candidate born in a forward caste who is transplanted in a family of backwards caste by adoption or by marriage does not become eligible for benefits of reservation under the Constitution."
Referring to Rajendra Shrivastava, the Court quoted: "A woman who is born into a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, on marriage with a person belonging to a forward caste, is not automatically transplanted into the caste of her husband by virtue of her marriage."
The Court stated the continuance of caste identity regardless of marriage: "The suffering of such a person by virtue of caste is not wiped out by marriage with a person belonging to a forward caste. The label attached to a person born into a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe continues notwithstanding the marriage."
In conclusion, the High Court observed: "The caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage."
The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the State and set aside the discharge order passed by the Trial Court. The Court issued the following direction: "The order passed by the learned Trial Court is ordered to be set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court, which shall hear the parties and pass a fresh order regarding framing of charges/discharge."
The Court further directed: "The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on ___ August, 2025."
Lastly, it was clarified: "The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sarojini
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:24439
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 377 of 2023
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
