The Madras High Court has ruled that children born in Puducherry can claim Scheduled Caste (SC), Most Backward Class (MBC), and Other Backward Class (OBC) reservation benefits based on the caste status of their mothers who are originally from the Union Territory. The judgment, delivered by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy on August 27, rejected the Puducherry government's argument that caste and social status must be determined through the father.
The court was hearing petitions filed by 26 women originally from Puducherry and their children, who were allegedly denied caste certificates by the district administration after marrying men from other states. Instead, the children were issued migrant certificates based on their fathers' place of residence. The petitions challenged the denial of caste and domicile certificates, which had resulted in the women and their children facing difficulties in accessing reservation benefits.
Court's Reasoning
The court observed that it is considered fair when a male marries a woman from another state and the child is born in Puducherry and lives there; in such cases, the benefit of reservation is granted. However, if a female marries a person from another state, even if the male comes and lives in Puducherry and the child is born and brought up in the mother's caste and surroundings, the benefit is denied. The court stated: "The basis of reservation is only social disadvantage and the sufferings and stigma attached to the child; that is the primordial factor for conferring the benefit. Whether it is patrilineal or matrilineal makes no difference."
The candidates in question were born and brought up in Puducherry and had studied there. Their mothers were Puducherry natives with SC, MBC, or OBC origin-status certificates, while their fathers were mostly from neighbouring Tamil Nadu districts. In some cases, the fathers claimed Puducherry origin but lacked documents such as their grandfather's certificate to prove it. Both parents belonged to the same community, and neither the candidates' caste nor their Puducherry native status was disputed. The administration was willing to issue certificates with a "migrant" tag, but these could not be used for reservation in education or employment under the Puducherry administration.
Rejection of 'Patriarchal Society' Argument
The Puducherry administration contended that caste should be traced in a patrilineal manner because society was patriarchal and that, in the absence of a statutory provision or entitlement, it could not be traced through the mother. The government argued that "Indian society has traditionally followed a patriarchal system" and that caste and social status should be determined through the father. It also relied on a Supreme Court judgment which held that a person eligible for reservation in one state cannot claim the same benefit after migrating to another state, and cited directions issued by the Central government while refusing to issue domicile certificates.
The court said that although Indian society had historically been patriarchal, such a position could not continue to be presumed or perpetuated in the face of Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (protection against discrimination), and 16 (equal opportunity in employment) of the Constitution. The court further stated: "The traditional belief that vamsam or lineage can only be patriarchal and that the woman takes the domicile of a man are all such stereotypes developed only because of a misogynistic society, compelling women to follow the same."
Advocate Stalin Abhimanyu, appearing for the petitioners, argued that restricting the issuance of caste certificates to the father's caste was contrary to the constitutional guarantee of gender equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16. He argued: "Stating that caste certificates can be issued only through the father is contrary to the gender equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution." He added: "When the children are born in Puducherry and face challenges within the social environment in which their mother lives, the mother's rights cannot be denied by citing the father's migration."
Legal Precedents
The court examined the Supreme Court's ruling in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naik v State of Gujarat, which dealt with whether a child could claim community status through the mother. The court noted that while there may be a presumption in an inter-caste marriage that a child takes the father's caste, that presumption is neither conclusive nor unchallengeable. A child could show that he or she was brought up in the mother's SC or ST community and suffered the same deprivations, indignities, humiliation, and handicaps as other members of that community. The high court said the ultimate test was which caste the child was brought up in and whether the child faced the deprivations, indignities, humiliations, and handicaps associated with that community; whether the claim was made through the father or mother was not itself decisive.
Applying that principle, the court said the facts of the present cases were significant as both parents belonged to the same caste, the mothers were Puducherry natives continuing to live in the same community, and the fathers had come to Puducherry. The court held that there need not be a separate enabling statutory provision to grant a community certificate by considering the mother's nativity.
The judge traced Puducherry's November 10, 2000 memorandum, which required SC-origin status to be determined only by the father's residence. The Madras High Court struck down that memorandum in P Jeya v Union of India under Articles 14 and 15, and upheld the earlier 1995 rule allowing the origin of either parent to be considered. The Supreme Court later dismissed the appeal while keeping the larger question of law open. The high court noted that subsequent division benches had repeatedly directed authorities to consider community certificates based on the mother's origin.
Order and Appeal
The court set aside the rejection orders and directed authorities to issue SC, MBC, or OBC certificates, as applicable, with origin status based on the mother's nativity. The court clarified that the claims could still be rejected if the caste claim was false or the mother's nativity was not established. The court stated that the children are eligible to receive the full benefits of reservation in admissions to Puducherry government educational institutions and government jobs.
According to Deccan Chronicle, the Puducherry government has filed an appeal against the judgment before a two-judge bench, so the order cannot currently be implemented.