MARRIAGE CANNOT CHANGE CASTE
The Madras High Court has passed a judgement which states that “caste of a person is determined on the basis of birth and it cannot be changed by virtue of marriage”.
In the present case, the victim who was a wife of the complainant has demanded a compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the Schedule Case and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Amendment Rules, 2016 before a District Collector. But her representation for the compensation before the District Collector was not considered, therefore victim has filed a petition in the Madras High Court. The petition was filed under the Rule 12(4) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016.
The prosecutor for the respondents has contended that the victim has been following the Christianity & her husband falls under the category of Backward classes. Therefore she is not entitled for any kind of compensation.
The court has accepted the petition. Justice Venkatesh, while passing the judgement, said that “the petitioner has been recognised as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community in the final report and the same has also been committed to the Special Court, dealing with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act. It is really unfortunate that the District Collector took a complete contradictory stand and deprived the petitioner from claiming compensation.”
The court has relied upon two case laws which are Sunita Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 493 & P.Vijayabharathy Vs. The District Collector cum District Magistrate and others in Crl. O. P. (MD). No. 2 of 2018. The relevant portion of the judgements from the above mentioned cases are the following:
- “There cannot be dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly, the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in Scheduled Caste. 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.” This judgement is from Sunita Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 493.
- “The Legislature thought it fit to bring in certain remedial measures in order to safeguard the victims, who suffered due to the backwardness and due to the fact that they belong to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community. A beneficial piece of legislation must be interpreted in a purposive manner which would effectuate the object of the welfare legislation and the Court must always lean in favour of applying the beneficial measures that have been given to victims, even in cases where the incident had happened before 2016. Therefore, this Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) to the effect that this rule cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for claim victim compensation in accordance with the rules, which came into effect only in the year 2016.” This excerpt is taken from & P.Vijayabharathy Vs. The District Collector cum District Magistrate and others in Crl. O. P. (MD). No. 2 of 2018.
Usually in India, it is observed that after marriage the girl has to change her surname with his husband. This means that the wife has to adopt the caste and surname of her husband after marriage. But recently the trend has changed. In middle class society the wives has stopped adopting their husbands caste and surname.
While passing the judgement in favour of the petitioner, the District Collector was order and directed to pay a sum of 1,50,000/- Rs as a compensation to the petitioner as per the rule No. 12(4) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016..
By-
Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Student Reporter, INBA