Shimla- The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that a person’s caste, assigned at birth, does not change after marriage. The High Court overturned a trial court order that had discharged a woman accused of atrocities under the SC/ST Act. The ruling came in a revision petition filed by the State against an order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shimla, which had held that the accused, Sarojini, became a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) after marrying an SC man and thus could not be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, in his July 28 verdict, emphasized that "caste is acquired by birth and does not change by marriage or adoption," setting aside the trial court’s discharge order and remanding the case for fresh consideration. The High Court directed the trial court to rehear arguments on framing charges, with both parties instructed to appear before the lower court in August 2025.

The High Court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University (1996) judgment, which the lower court had misinterpreted to suggest that marriage could alter caste status. Justice Kainthla clarified, "The Valsamma Paul case does not lay down that a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste acquires SC status after marriage. Instead, it categorically states that such a person cannot claim reservation benefits."

The court cited multiple precedents, including a Madras High Court ruling (Kaliya Perumal v. State, 1997) and a Bombay High Court Full Bench decision (Rajendra Shrivastava v. State of Maharashtra, 2010), which held that "a woman born into a Scheduled Caste does not lose her caste status by marrying a forward-caste man, nor does a non-SC woman gain SC status by marrying an SC man."

Justice Kainthla quoted the Bombay High Court’s observation: "The suffering of a person born into a Scheduled Caste is not wiped out by marriage to a forward-caste individual. The label attached at birth continues irrespective of marital ties." Similarly, the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Bhimappa Jantakal v. State of Karnataka (2022) was referenced, which stated that "a Scheduled Caste woman marrying a forward-caste man does not lose her SC status, and her children retain their caste identity."

Case Background

The dispute arose from a 2022 FIR where Sarojini was accused of offenses under Sections 451 (house-trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court discharged her from the SC/ST Act charge, reasoning that since she married an SC man, she became an SC member and thus could not commit atrocities against her own community.

The State challenged this, arguing that "caste is determined by birth and remains immutable throughout life." The High Court agreed, noting that the trial court’s interpretation would "defeat the very purpose of the SC/ST Act, which aims to protect marginalized communities from caste-based discrimination."

The ruling reinforces the legal principle that "caste is an inherent identity, not altered by marital ties," ensuring that offenses under the SC/ST Act are adjudicated without ambiguity. It also prevents misuse of the Act by ensuring only those not belonging to SC/ST communities can be prosecuted for caste-based atrocities.

The case will now return to the trial court for a fresh hearing on whether charges should be framed against Sarojini under the SC/ST Act, alongside other IPC offenses. The High Court clarified that its observations were limited to the legal issue and would not influence the trial’s merits.