Caste identity unchanged by marriage or religion, SC/ST act applies, says Allahabad high court

PRAYAGRAJ: Observing that caste of a person assigned at the time of one's birth remained same even if one changed religion or entered into an inter-caste marriage, Allahabad high court, in its decision dated Jan 10, dismissed a criminal appeal by a group of persons challenging an order passed by special judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, summoning them to face trial for offences under SC/ST Act and various sections of the IPC.

The plea taken by one Dinesh and eight others petitioners was that though the complainant belonged to scheduled caste by birth, she no longer remained the same after marrying a person belonging to the Jat community.


Justice Anil Kumar-X rejected the contention that the woman had lost her caste after marrying a person belonging to Jat community, noting, "Though a person may change religion, his or her caste remains same despite conversion to another religion. Marriage does not change a person's caste. Therefore, the said contention is unsustainable."

The informant had filed a criminal complaint against the appellants, alleging she was assaulted and abused and that the appellants had used casteist slurs against her during an altercation. She also alleged that three people, including herself, were injured in the incident.

Challenging the summoning order, the appellants moved the high court, wherein they argued that though the informant originally belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) community by birth and was originally resident of West Bengal, she lost her caste status after she married a man belonging to the Jat community.

It was contended that a woman, after marrying a person of another caste, lost her original caste which she held since birth and thereafter belonged to the caste of her husband. Therefore, they argued, summoning the appellants for offences under the SC/ST Act was unsustainable. It was also argued that the informant had falsely implicated them after the appellants lodged prior FIR against the informant and her family.

State counsel, however, opposed their plea on the ground that the incident stated in the complaint and the incident narrated in the FIR occurried on the same date. Hence, it was submitted that the claim of the appellants that the present complaint was lodged as a counterblast was untenable.

The court noted that trial court had summoned the appellants after considering the statements of the informant and her witnesses, along with injury reports. It also noted that existence of a cross-case did not constitute a ground to discard a complaint filed by the opposite party on a rival version.

Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Valentine's day wishes, messages and gift idea !