The Allahabad High Court held caste by birth remains unchanged despite conversion or marriage, while dismissing an appeal against summons under the SC/ST Act from an Aligarh special court. Justice Anil Kumar-X ruled religion may change, but caste endures.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a person’s caste, assigned at birth, remains unchanged even if they convert to a different religion or marry into another community. This assertion was made while the court dismissed an appeal challenging an order from an Aligarh special court that summoned nine individuals to face trial under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The case was rooted in a criminal complaint filed by a woman in an Aligarh SC/ST court, where she claimed the accused assaulted her and used casteist slurs during a disagreement. Following the special judge’s decision to summon the nine accused for offenses under the SC/ST Act, they approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the complainant could not invoke the act due to her marriage to a man from a different caste. They contended that her Scheduled Caste status had been nullified by her inter-caste marriage.
Rejecting this argument, Justice Anil Kumar-X noted that marriage does not alter an individual’s caste identity. The court emphasized that while a person may change their religion, their caste remains consistent despite conversion or marriage. The judgment was delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 6081 of 2022, which arose from proceedings before the Special Judge for the SC/ST Act in Aligarh.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
Background of the Case:
The appeal was filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against an order dated July 27, 2022, by the Special Judge for the SC/ST Act in Aligarh. The appellants, Dinesh and eight others, were summoned to stand trial in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022.
The charges included offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint), and 354 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act.
The complaint alleged that the informant was assaulted and subjected to abuse by the appellants, who utilized casteist slurs during the incident, resulting in injuries to the complainant and two others.
Arguments Of Parties:
The Appellants’ Arguments
Counsel for the appellants presented two main arguments before the High Court. First, they claimed that the complaint was retaliatory; they argued that a previous First Information Report (FIR) had been filed by the appellants against the informant and her family members in Case Crime No. 442 of 2021, alleging similar offenses.
This FIR, lodged on September 7, 2021, included injury reports indicating that members of their family also sustained injuries, leading to claims that the subsequent complaint was a “counterblast.”
Second, the appellants questioned the applicability of the SC/ST Act, asserting that the informant, originally from West Bengal, belonged to the SC/ST community there. They contended that after marrying into the Jat community, she had lost her original caste status and could no longer seek protections under the SC/ST Act. They argued that upon marrying someone from a different caste, a woman adopts her husband’s caste and thus forfeits her birth caste.
The State’s Response
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the informant, opposed the appeal. They argued that the alleged incidents detailed in both the complaint and the earlier FIR occurred on the same date, representing a single episode.
The informant’s assertion of being assaulted and subjected to caste-based abuse during the encounter, along with the injuries sustained by three individuals, was emphasized. The State maintained that the existence of a cross-case did not invalidate the complainant’s allegation or render it malicious, asserting that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, the High Court addressed the two primary issues: the implications of a cross-case and the question of caste identity after marriage.
- Cross-Case and Rival Versions:
The court noted that the Trial Court had summoned the appellants based on the statements of the informant and her witnesses, as well as the injury reports. The High Court concluded that the presence of a cross-case does not justify dismissing a complaint filed by the opposing party based solely on conflicting accounts. It acknowledged that cross-cases stemming from the same incident are common and highlight competing narratives.
The Court stressed that factual disputes should be resolved through the trial process, rather than being dismissed at the outset simply because a counter-complaint exists. Thus, the High Court found no illegality in the trial court’s decision to summon the appellants for the alleged offenses.
- Marriage and Caste Identity:
On the matter of whether caste could be lost through marriage, the Court delivered a definitive ruling. It rejected the appellants’ argument as having “no force.” The Court reasoned that while individuals may change their religion, caste remains constant regardless of conversion.
Consequently, the assertion that the informant lost her SC/ST status by marrying into the Jat community was deemed legally untenable. The ruling reinforces the principle that caste, according to Indian law, is conferred by birth and is not automatically altered by marriage. Thus, the informant retained her caste identity for the purposes of claiming protections under the SC/ST Act.
Final Order:
Finding no merit in the appellants’ arguments, the High Court dismissed the appeal. As a result, the summoning order issued by the Special Judge for the SC/ST Act in Aligarh stands, and the appellants will be required to face trial based on the charges against them.
The judgment affirms two significant doctrinal points:
- 1) the independence of cross-cases in criminal proceedings, and
- 2) the continuity of caste identity despite inter-caste marriage.
It illustrates the judiciary’s role in balancing procedural fairness with the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, reinforcing statutory protections for historically marginalized communities and affixing legal safeguards to birth-based identities rather than marital affiliations.
Legal Significance:
The judgment reinforces two crucial principles in criminal and constitutional jurisprudence.
First, it affirms that courts should not prematurely dismiss complaints merely because they arise amid cross-litigation. Competing narratives should be evaluated based on evidence during the trial.
Second, it clarifies the legal standing of caste identity following marriage.
By asserting that marriage does not alter caste status, the Court ensures that protections under the SC/ST Act cannot be undermined through changes in marital status. The SC/ST Act is designed to prevent atrocities and discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; therefore, allowing marriage to nullify caste identity would create a loophole that could weaken its enforcement.
Case Title: Dinesh & 8 others vs State of U.P Crl Appeal No. – 6081 of 2022
Read Attachment: