BENGALURU: Caste of a person is determined by birth and in rare circumstances, a woman gets the caste status of her spouse provided she proves her admission to his community by social acceptance, the high court observed in a recent judgment.
“There is no dispute that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of Scheduled Tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and a person gets the caste of his/her father. That is why the Mahabharata states: ‘Daivaa yatnam kule janma, purushaa yatnam pourusham’,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said in his order. He dismissed the petition filed by MG Archana, a member of Balekoppa Gram Panchayat representing a constituency reserved for ST.
The judge, however, added: “It is true that in rare circumstances a woman acquires her husband’s caste provided she pleads and proves her admission to his community by social acceptance. But the petitioner did not make out this case in her objections to the election petition in the lower court. Such a plea now being taken via the writ petition is only an afterthought and cannot be accepted as the pleading in the election petition.”
Archana was unseated by an order passed by a Shivamogga civil court on February 1, 2022, on the grounds of lack of social status. Abhilasha had challenged her election.
Approaching the high court, Archana argued no fair opportunity was given to her. However, justice Dixit pointed out that the said contention is difficult to countenance in as much as the petitioner herself had appeared in the matter and sought time for engaging another advocate, after the first one retired from the case.
“Adjournment was granted thrice, but she remained absent. No plausible explanation is offered for such a lapse. The petitioner is an elected representative of the people and not a peasant or a labourer who can seek leniency in matters like this,” the judge observed.
Dwelling further, justice Dixit said in matters pertaining to election, equity and common law principles have no place, in terms of the Supreme Court directive in the Jyoti Basu vs Deb Prasad Ghosal case.
