Caste Status Remains Unchanged by Marriage or Religious Conversion, Rules Allahabad High Court While Dismissing Appeal
The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a person’s caste, determined at birth, does not change due to marriage or even religious conversion.
The court made this observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Dinesh and eight others, who had challenged a summoning order issued by a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act in Aligarh.
The appellants had approached the High Court contesting the trial court’s decision to summon them to face charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Their primary argument was that the complainant, though born into a Scheduled Caste, had allegedly lost her caste status after marrying a man from the Jat community.
Rejecting this contention, Justice Anil Kumar–X categorically held that caste is determined by birth and remains unchanged regardless of subsequent life events.
The court noted in its January 10 ruling that while a person may adopt another religion, such a change does not alter their caste identity.
Similarly, marriage to a person belonging to another caste does not affect one’s original caste status. The judge therefore termed the appellants’ argument as legally untenable and dismissed the appeal.
The case originated from a criminal complaint filed by the informant, who alleged that the accused had assaulted her and hurled caste-based abuses during an altercation.
She further claimed that three individuals, including herself, sustained injuries in the incident.
In their challenge before the High Court, the appellants argued that after marrying outside her caste, the complainant should legally be considered part of her husband’s caste, and therefore, the provisions of the SC/ST Act would not apply.
They also alleged that the complaint had been filed as a retaliatory measure, since they had earlier lodged an FIR against the complainant and her family.
The state counsel opposed these claims, pointing out that both the complaint and the FIR referred to incidents that occurred on the same day, making the appellants’ argument of a retaliatory complaint unsustainable.
After examining the matter, the High Court observed that the trial court had issued the summoning order only after carefully considering the complainant’s statement, witness testimonies, and medical injury reports.
The court also clarified that the existence of a cross-case does not automatically invalidate a complaint filed by the opposing party, as each version must be independently evaluated during trial.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the trial court’s order and directed that the proceedings against the appellants continue.
#AllahabadHighCourt #SCSTAct #CasteLaw #IndianJudiciary #LegalUpdate #SocialJustice #RuleOfLaw #CourtRuling
