The case involved Sujal Mangala Birwadkar, whose father belonged to a forward, non–Scheduled Caste community (Hindu Agri), while his mother was from the Chambhar community (Scheduled Caste). After his parents divorced in 2016, Birwadkar began identifying with his mother’s caste, and the local authority issued him a caste certificate in 2023. However, the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee later revoked it. Birwadkar then approached the High Court, contesting the revocation and seeking reinstatement of his caste certificate based on his maternal lineage.
The Court, offering a detailed review of both the factual background and legal standards, emphasized that a child born to inter-caste parents can claim the mother's caste only if there is compelling evidence of social discrimination, deprivation, or exclusion arising from that identity. This principle, grounded in prior Bombay High Court precedents, particularly requires proof that the individual faced real-world disadvantage or societal bias.
Examining Birwadkar’s upbringing, the Court observed that despite his mother’s caste, he had “an advantageous start in life.” He was educated in reputable schools, lived in conditions free from hardship, and bore no indication of caste-based mistreatment. Importantly, during their separation, it was the father’s family environment that provided stability, both economically and socially. The petitioner had not provided any records—such as school, vigilance, or community testimony—that would establish degradation or denial of opportunity due to Scheduled Caste status.
The Court quoted from the petition record: Birwadkar’s school records initially registered him as Hindu Agri, and his maternal side enjoyed adequate living standards—including sanitation, healthcare, and resources—indicating that he did not experience any stereotype-driven disadvantage. Consequently, the Court agreed with the Scrutiny Committee’s finding that he had not suffered social exclusion or discrimination based on caste. As a result, his appeal was dismissed.
What sets this ruling apart is its insistence on evidence of lived adversity as the key criterion for reassignment of caste identity under reservation frameworks. It upheld the legal precedent that caste is not merely inherited but can be adopted, provided the claimant faces corresponding stigma or discrimination. Within this context, the child’s social reality—not sheer lineage—determines eligibility.
The Court also reaffirmed that broad assumptions cannot supplant hard evidence. While it recognized that the Aaple Sarkar portal currently restricts entry of only paternal caste, the focus remained on Birwadkar’s personal circumstance. There was no direction to modify portal policy in his case. The Court did, however, acknowledge that exceptions might exist for persons demonstrably disadvantaged by the maternal caste, thereby potentially shaping future administrative guidelines.
Ultimately, the verdict clarifies that children of inter-caste marriages are not automatically entitled to the mother’s caste for reservation benefits. Instead, eligibility hinges on proving genuine social bias or exclusion linked to their maternal identity. This judgment sets a clear legal threshold, ensuring caste-based advantages under reservation are conferred only when supported by meaningful evidence of disadvantage.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.