Back
A.S.OKA, R.Y.GANOO, B.H.MARLAPALLE
Rajendra Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Key Points: - A woman born into a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not cease to belong to her original caste upon marrying a man from a forward caste (!) (!) . - Caste is acquired by birth and cannot be changed by marriage or adoption (!) (!) (!) . - The object of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is to prevent atrocities against members of these communities (!) . - Accepting the interpretation that a wife's caste merges with her husband's upon marriage would defeat the purpose of the Atrocities Act and the Constitution's protective measures for SC/ST individuals (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court in Valsamma Paul (supra) did not hold that a woman born in a forward caste automatically becomes transplanted into her husband's caste upon marriage to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person (!) . - The ratio of the Valsamma Paul decision is that acquiring the status of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe through voluntary mobility (like marriage) would be a fraud on the Constitution and frustrate its policies (!) (!) . - A person born into a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe suffers disadvantages due to their caste by birth, and this suffering is not erased by marriage to a forward caste individual (!) . - The label attached to a person born into a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe continues despite marriage (!) . - The question referred to the larger bench was whether an offence under the Atrocities Act can be registered if a SC/ST woman marrying a forward caste man is abused in the name of her caste (!) . - The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, meaning an offence can be registered (!) .
A.S. OKA, J.
The Learned Single Judge (Coram: D.B.Bhosale, J) by his order dated 30th June 2009 has referred the following question for determination by a larger bench:
“If a lady, belonging to the schedule caste/schedule tribe, marrying a person belonging to forward caste, is abused in the name of her caste by a member of public or by her husband or his relatives, whether an offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act can be registered and investigated against such person/s.”
2. The applicant has filed the present application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is the husband of the complainant. The complainant lodged a First Information Report No.125 of 2008 on 8th April 2008. The allegation is of commission of offences under sections and 498A, 406, 494, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of section 3(1)(ii) and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). An offence under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1955”) was also alleged in the said
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
