Caste identity is determined by birth and cannot be altered by marriage; however, renouncing a caste is possible if recognized by the community.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 23^rd March, 2023 passed by the Collector, on appeal preferred against order dated 21^st December, 2021 passed by the Tahsildar, refusing to issue caste certificate to his client.

2. He submits, there is no dispute his client was born into scheduled caste ‘Gonda’ family. On query from Court he submits, in year, 2019 she married a Christian. However that cannot cause her to lose her identity as belonging to the scheduled caste.

3. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunita Singh v. State of U.P. , (2018) 2 SCC 493 , paragraph 5, reproduced below.

“5. There cannot be any dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of scheduled caste. Undoubtedly, the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in scheduled caste. Merely because her husband is belonging to a scheduled caste category, the appellant should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted.” (Emphasis supplied)

He also relies on majority view of said Court in V.V. Giri Vs. D. Suri Dora , AIR 1959 SC 1318 , paragraphs 23 and 24 (SCC online print).

4. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, there should not be interference.

5. The Supreme Court declared the law to be that a person is born into a caste. It cannot be changed by marriage. In other words, being born into an upper caste, one cannot become scheduled caste by marrying a person, who belongs to one. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition. Petitioner’s case is to the contrary. The question is whether she renounced her caste by embracing Christianity, on having married a Christian.

6. In an otherwise situation contemplated in V.V. Giri (supra) the Supreme Court said as would appear from a passage extracted from paragraph 24, reproduced below:

“24..........The High Court has held that even if the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the appellant is accepted at its face value, it falls far short of establishing his plea that respondent had become a kshatriya at the material time. The caste-status of a person in the context would necessarily have to be determined in the light of the recognition received by him from the members of the caste into which he seeks an entry. ” (Emphasis supplied)

Above indicates it is possible for a person to seek entry into a caste. It follows that the converse, of renouncing a caste is, therefore, possible.

7. In impugned order it is recorded that petitioner had stated she is Hindu by birth and she is still practising Hindu rituals even after her marriage. The appellate authority, in considering rival submissions, went on to hold as will appear from two paragraphs, reproduced from impugned order.

“Sufficient time was given to the petitioner to produce any valid documents according to her claim. But the petitioner failed to produce any valid documents.

After hearing the petitioner, Tahasildar, Loisingha & going through the available documents, I am led to the conclusion that, the petitioner failed to show any proof towards her claim that, she is practicing Hindu religion. Whereas, as per the report of Tahasildar, Loisingha after her marriage to one Rahul Senapati S/o Santosh Senapati, Vill-Brahmanipali, PS-Loisingha, Dist.- Bolangir, the petitioner is now practicing Christianity hence the order dtd.24.12.2021 passed by the Tahasildar, Loisingha in Caste Certificate application No. E- SCO/202