Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while recognising the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status of a woman who married outside her community, ruled that “a woman cannot be denied her SC/ST/OBC status after marriage to a non-SC/ST/OBC person, as a woman’s caste is determined by birth and not by marriage.”

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, directed the authorities to reconsider their decision of denying a ST category certificate to the petitioner, Shivaeta Rani, a member of the Padri Tribe. The order mandates a decision on or before February 11, 2025, to ensure Rani can apply for the UPSC Civil Services Examination within the deadline, without requiring her to file a fresh application.

The petitioner had applied for an ST certificate, which was rejected by the Tehsildar, Kishtwar (Respondent No. 5) on December 30, 2024. She appealed this decision before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar (Respondent No. 4) under the Public Service Guarantee Act, 2011. However, the appellate authority dismissed her appeal, reasoning that the issue was technical and required further clarification under the Reservation Act or from the Law Department. The appellate authority granted Rani the liberty to approach the competent authority for reconsideration. The petitioner then approached the High Court, arguing that her ST status should remain unchanged despite her marriage to a non-Padri individual.

Advocate Abid Khan, appearing for the petitioner, presented a legal opinion dated December 16, 2024, issued by the Law Department, which confirmed that caste status is determined by birth and not affected by marriage. This legal opinion, conveyed to all Deputy Commissioners in J&K and the Revenue Department, was based on a clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The clarification explicitly stated: “The guiding principle is that no person who was not a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by birth will be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe merely because he or she had married a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Similarly a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would continue to be a member of that Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be, even after his or her marriage with a person who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.”

During the proceedings, Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Monika Kohli, appearing for the respondents, filed an affidavit stating that the government was not opposed to granting relief in light of the legal clarification. It was suggested that the matter could be resolved if the petitioner reapplied for the ST certificate. However, the petitioner emphasised the urgency of the matter, as she needed the certificate to apply for the UPSC Civil Services Examination before February 11, 2025. Given the time constraint, she urged the court to direct the authorities to reconsider the rejection without requiring a fresh application.

Taking into account the urgency of the matter and the petitioner’s career prospects, the court ruled that the authorities must decide on the petitioner’s ST certificate application by February 11, 2025, without requiring her to submit a fresh application.

“Keeping in view the urgency expressed and the career of the petitioner is involved, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the instant petition by directing the respondent No. 5 to take a decision in the instant matter for issuance of a certificate i.e., ST category certificate in favour of the petitioner being a member of Padri Tribe, on or before 11.02.2025 and the decision for issuance of the certificate which is likely to be taken by the said respondent, be forwarded to the petitioner on or before the said date so that petitioner is in a position to apply for the said examination well within time,” the court ordered.

Additionally, the court clarified that the decision shall be taken strictly in conformity with the clarification issued by the Social Welfare Department in pursuance to the opinion of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Law Department.

 

Cause Title: Shivaeta Rani v UOI [WP(C) No. 169/2025]