Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48274
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
GEORGE ISSAC – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/1936/2021
GEORGE MATHEW, SHRI.PRAVEEN S., SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN, SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G, SRI.DIPU JAMES, SHRI.MATHEW K.T., SRI.K.V.GEORGE
The judicial determination emphasizes that community status may be validated through lineage and should not be diminished by marital affiliations with different communities.
Headnote:
Caste - Community Status - Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - Act 11 of 1996 - The court interpreted community status and validity of caste certificates under specific provisions, establishing rights to community status based on father’s heritage and historical context.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves three writ petitions by a family seeking caste certificates confirming their status as members of the Malai Arayan Christian community, arguing their heritage and treatment as scheduled tribe members.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the mother is entitled to a caste certificate as a Scheduled Tribe member. It directed authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into the status of her husband and children, independent of previous findings.
Issues: The core issue centers on the community status of the petitioners as Malai Arayan Christians, specifically the validity of past certificates and the implications of marriage on their scheduled tribe benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that community status is primarily derived from paternal lineage and should not be negated by marital affiliations with non-scheduled communities, emphasizing the need for a fair enquiry.
Final Decision: The court ruled that the mother is entitled to a caste certificate, and the father and children's community status requires further investigation.
J U D G M E N T
The issues raised in these three writ petitions relate to the community status of the petitioners, all of whom belong to one family, consisting of the mother, father and two children. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:
W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2016
2. This writ petition is filed by Mrs.Ruby John praying to quash Exts.P7 and P8 and for a direction to the respondents to issue caste/tribe certificate treating the petitioner as member of 'Malai Arayan Christian Community' converted from 'Malai Arayan Hindu Community'.
W.P.(C)No.25171 of 2020
3. This writ petition is filed by the husband and children of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2016 praying to quash Ext.P9 and for a direction to the respondents to issue caste/tribe certificate treating the petitioners as members of 'Malai Arayan Christian Community'
:-7-:
converted from 'Malai Arayan Hindu Community' and for other reliefs.
W.P.(C)No.1936 of 2021
4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.25171 of 2020 praying to quash Ext.P5 issued by the eighth respondent Commission, relying on the findings of the KIRTADS in the enquiry conducted in the case of Mrs.Ruby John.
5. Heard Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the 3 cases and Sri.K.V.Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader, Smt. Deepa Narayanan, learned Senior Government Pleader and Smt.Rashmi K.M., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The case of the petitioners in all these cases is that they belonged to the Malai Arayan Christian community which is a Scheduled Tribe. According to them, their forefathers had adopted the custom and practice of Malai Arayan Christian Community and they were also subjected to the same liabilities, hardships and sufferings of the said Community. Even though the writ petitions proceed on the basis that the Malai Arayan Christian community is notified, it can be :-8-:
seen from Part VII of The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order , 1950, as amended from time to time, relating to the Kerala State that the relevant entry is Sl.No. 20 which reads as Malai Arayan (Mala Arayan). There is also a similar sounding entry against Sl.No.26 as “Malayarayar” with which these writ petitions are not concerned with.
7. An enquiry has already been conducted into the community status of Mrs.Ruby John, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30743 of 2016. The 4th respondent in the said writ petition has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the Vigilance Cell of KIRTADS (6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.30743 of 2016) had conducted an anthropological enquiry as per the provisions of the Act 11 of 1996 and in the report dated 30.11.2017 found that the father of Mrs.Ruby John belongs to Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. It is further stated that her mother is an offspring of inter-caste married couple of which the father belonged to the Christian Community of CSI denomination and mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. It is further stated that the SSLC book relating to Mrs.Ruby John showed her as Christian Malai Arayan. It is also :-9-:
stated that the enquiry disclosed the fact that Mrs.Ruby John is socialized in the cultural background of Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community of her father and the society included her as the member of Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. The KIRTADS has come to a conclusion that Mrs.Ruby John can be considered as a treated member of the Scheduled Tribe, Malai Arayan Community since the father belongs to the said Community and mother is an offspring of CSI Christian father and Scheduled Tribe mother. It is further stated that as per the proceedings No.2035057/G3/2017/SCSTDD dated 7.2.2018, the Scrutiny Committee has endorsed the findings of the expert agency that the petitioner can be considered as a treated Member of the Scheduled Tribe Malai Arayan Community. However, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee has observed that since Mrs.Ruby John has married a person belongin
