'Caste Doesn’t Change by Marriage': Himachal Pradesh HC Reinstates Atrocities Charge Against Woman

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on July 28, 2025, set aside a trial court’s order discharging a woman accused of caste-based abuse, stating that caste is determined by birth and does not change through marriage.

A criminal revision petition was filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the May 2022 order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shimla. The trial court had discharged the respondent, Sarojini, from charges under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act on the ground that she had married a Scheduled Caste man and, therefore, herself became a member of the Scheduled Caste community and was therefore exempt from being prosecuted under the Act.

The high court found this reasoning legally untenable. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [(1996) 3 SCC 545] and consistent jurisprudence from the High Courts of Madras, Bombay, and Karnataka, the court held that caste identity remains fixed by birth and cannot be altered through matrimonial alliances or other voluntary actions.

"Trial Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Valsamma Paul (Mrs) v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545, to hold that a person not belonging to the Scheduled Caste will acquire the status of a Scheduled Caste after her marriage. However, this judgment does not lay down that a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste will acquire the status of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage; rather, it categorically lays down that she will not be entitled to reservation," the High Court clarified. 

The woman had been accused of using caste-based slurs against a Scheduled Caste individual. In her defense, she argued that her marriage to a person from the Scheduled Caste community rendered her a member of that community, thereby precluding the applicability of the SC/ST Act to her case.

However, the bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that such a claim was not sustainable in law. It emphasized that permitting caste identity to be acquired by marriage would defeat the constitutional intent behind protective discrimination provisions and could open the door to misuse of legal safeguards.

"...the Caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage and she cannot commit an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act," court held. 

Even counsel for the respondent conceded that the trial court had erred in discharging the accused on this basis and requested that the matter be remitted for reconsideration on merits.

Allowing the State’s revision petition, court set aside the discharge order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on the question of framing charges. It clarified that the observations made in the present order were limited to the legal question involved and shall not influence the trial court’s assessment of the case on facts.

The parties have been directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.

Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sarojini

Order Date: July 28, 2025

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla