Not satisfied with this, VHP filed an appeal against this order. However, on January 27, 2025, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu, dismissed the appeal.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the right-wing group Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath (VHP), challenging a decision made by a single-judge bench. The original case involved a Hindu woman who had married a Christian man and had been recognized as belonging to the Hindu Nadar caste.
The woman was born into the Hindu Nadar community and in 2006, she was granted a non-creamy layer certificate. This certificate recognized her as a member of the Hindu-Nadar caste and helped her secure a job as a Last Grade Servant in the Munsiff Court.
However, in 2012, the District Collector cancelled her caste certificate, accusing her of fraud. In 2013, the woman approached the Kerala High Court to challenge the Collector’s decision. In 2019, a single judge ruled that the District Collector had passed the order without properly considering all the facts.
While the case was in front of the single judge, VHP intervened and became a party to the case, expressing their concerns. The single judge then ordered that the woman be treated as a member of the Hindu-Nadar community.
Not satisfied with this, VHP filed an appeal against this order. However, on January 27, 2025, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu, dismissed the appeal.
The Bench stated that VHP did not have the legal right or standing to challenge the decision, as it was not directly affected by the case.
The Court explained, “At most, the community (VHP) could present its concerns or relevant material before the State to assist in arriving at a proper decision. However, once the learned Single Judge examined the materials on record and set aside the State’s order – an order that the State itself has not challenged – the Appellant’s (VHP) intervention in the writ petition does not confer upon it the locus standi to challenge the judgment.”
The Division Bench also pointed out that the dispute was a service-related matter between the woman and the State, and not something that could involve the VHP, which was not an affected party.
“The matter was between the State and the Original Petitioner, being a service matter,”
the Court added.
The Court further clarified that because neither the State nor any other person affected by the woman’s employment status had challenged the single judge’s decision, the appeal by VHP was unnecessary.
“Neither the State nor any person in employment, who may be affected by the status of the Original Petitioner in respect of promotion, etc., has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed,”
the Court concluded.
The VHP was represented by advocate SM Prasanth, while the woman was represented by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj. The State was represented by Senior Government Pleader V Tekchand.
Case Title: Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v. State of Kerala and ors.
