Children Can Claim Reservation Through Mother's Caste: Madras High Court Rejects Puducherry Govt's Patriarchal Stand

Justice Bharatha Chalravarthy held that the basis of reservation was the social disadvantage and stigma attached to the child and whether the same was patrilineal or matrilineal would make no difference for granting benefits.

“It is not that the Government of Puducherry requires both parents to be from Puducherry. It is considered fair when a male marries a woman from another state, and the child is born in Puducherry and lives there; the benefit of reservation is granted. If only the female marries a person from another state, even if the male comes and lives in Puducherry and the child is born and brought up in the caste of the mother and the surroundings, the benefit is denied. The basis of reservation is only social disadvantage and the sufferings and stigma attached to the child; that is the primordial factor for conferring the benefit. Whether it is patrilineal or matrilineal makes no difference,” the court noted.

The court rejected the stand taken by the Puducherry Government that our country, being a patriarchal society, caste should be traced patrilineally by birth and could not be traced matrilineally without any statutory provision.

The court observed that considering Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, there could be no assertion for the society to remain patriarchal. The court added that the belief that lineage can only be patriarchal since the woman would take the domicile of the man was a stereotype developed by the misogynistic society.

“The traditional belief that vamsam or lineage can only be patriarchal and that the woman takes the domicile of a man are all such stereotypes developed only because of a misogynistic society, compelling women to follow the same,” the court said.

The court further noted that even if the stand of the Puducherry government was based on traces of Hindu Law, the law had now changed and women had been made coparceners and given equal proprietary rights in coparcener property as well.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas in which the Puducherry authorities had denied community certificate or issued the same as “Migrant category” for the sole reason that their fathers were migrants from other states, mostly from the adjoining districts of Tamil Nadu. However, in all the cases, the mothers were natives of Puducherry, possessing community certificate as Scheduled Caste (SC)/Most Backward Class (MBC)/Other Backward Class (OBC) with origin status, having the right to claim reservation in education and employment offered by the Union Territory administration.

Thus, the question before the court was whether a candidate could claim communal status as SC/MBCOBC solely based on mother's nativity when father, though from the same caste, was a migrant from another state. The Puducherry govt had denied the benefit, claiming that SC status could be claimed only in the State of origin and not in Migrant State.

The petitioners argued that the stand taken by the government was hit by Articles 14,15, and 16 of the Constitution as it was discriminatory on the basis of sex. It was argued that there was no statutory rule or condition under Article 341 or under The Constitution (Puducherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 that the SC status could be claimed only as per the status of the father.

The authorities, on the other hand, argued that the Government of India, through a communication dated July 2025, had clarified that in the absence of any statutory law, a person would inherit his caste status from his father and not from his mother. However, with respect to single mothers/widowed mothers, etc, a community certificate would be issued to the child who has been brought up in the surroundings of the notified community to which the mother belongs.

After discussing various decisions of the Supreme Court, the court noted that though normally the father's caste is looked into, the ultimate test was to see which caste the child was brought up in and whether the deprivations, indignities, humiliations and handicaps of the community are faced by the child. The court underlined that the difficulties faced by the child would be the litmus test and not whether the claim was made through the father or the mother.

Thus, the court was inclined to set aside the order of the authorities and directed that the petitioners were entitled to a community certificate as SC/MBC/OBC with their respective native resident (origin) status mentioned on the basis of their mother's nativity.

The court added that the petitioners would be entitled to reservation in education and employment for admission to various courses and posts under the Union Territory Administration as well as other benefits applicable to their respective communal status.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Mr. Mani Sundargopal for Mr. B. Kaarvannan, Mr. V. Ajayakumar, Mr. M. Gnanasekar, Mr. Prakash Adiapadam, Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, Mr. Parthiban Pathmanabane, Mr. K. Uthayanithi Mr. S. Sathia Chandran, Mr. Kamala Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Sreedhar, Additional Government Pleader (Pondy)

Case Title: Thelagam v The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

Case No: WP No 30674 of 2026 etc Batch