Person Born In A Particular Community Can't Be Denied Certificate Sans Enquiry Merely Because His Mother/ Wife Belong To Another Community: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a person born in a particular community cannot be denied community certificate merely for the reason of change in his residence or because his mother and wife belong to another community.

Justice VG Arun opined that to determine the community status of a person, enquiry must be conducted about the caste to which the applicant is born and how he was brought up and the mere fact that he changed residence or married a belonging to another caste, are not determining factors. It observed,

"The fact that the petitioner's mother belongs to Hindu-Ezhava community or his wife is from Ezhava community are not sufficient to hold that the petitioner does not belong to the Hindu-Pallan community. For arriving at such a conclusion, the competent authority should enquire about the caste/community to which the applicant is born, the manner in which he/she was brought up, the practices and customs followed and the acceptance of the incumbent by the caste or a group to which he/she claims to belong etc."

The Court was adjudicating upon a matter where the application for a caste certificate filed by the petitioner, who is born to an inter-caste married couple, was denied citing that his mother belonged to the Ezhava Community.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Varun C Vijay, contended that the impugned decision is ex facie illegal as it was passed without considering the crucial fact that, from birth onwards, the petitioner had grown up as a Hindu-Pallan and this fact is substantiated by the entries in the admission register and the caste certificates issued over the years. He further contended that the caste certificate was denied based on a report submitted by the village officer, in which the only observation highlighted is that the petitioner's wife also belongs to the Ezhava caste.

Refuting the contentions, the Special Government Pleader, Advocate Riyal Devassy submitted that the Tahasildars are not having the competence to decide the community status of a person, instead, KIRTADS is having the expertise. 

The Court pointed out that the fact that the petitioner's community status is shown as Hindu-Pallan in his school records is undisputed. Siding with the contentions raised by the petitioner the court observed that there is no adverse observation in the report submitted by the village officer other than the mere fact that the petitioner shifted his residence and petitioner is married to a person belonging to the Ezhava community does not justify the refusal of issuance of community certificate, contrary to the previous caste certificates issued to the petitioner. 

The Court observed that to determine the community status of a person the competent authority should enquire about the caste/community to which the applicant is born, how he/she was brought up, the practices and customs followed and acceptance of the incumbent by the caste or a group to which he/she claims to belong etc and in the instant case such an inquiry was not conducted. 

The Court while disagreeing with the contention that the petitioner ought to have approached the KIRTADS, observed that only under the circumstances envisaged in Section 9 of the Act an enquiry would be conducted by an expert agency. This includes suo motu enquiries on the basis of field study on caste, on receiving petitions and complaints from any source pertaining to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, claims of non-Scheduled Castes or on the direction or reference from the state or central government or screening committee.

Thereby, the Court held that a person issued with a community certificate throughout his life, cannot be refused the certificate in a  case where the KIRTADS has not even initiated such enquiry. Disposing of the petition, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the issuance of a community certificate. 

Case Title: R. Karthik v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 377

Click Here To Read/Download The Order