Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1038 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 15 July, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                  Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010007982016




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:9132

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/661/2016

         BIKRAM BORO
         S/O SRI RAJU BORO R/O ATHIABARI MAUZA AND P.S. GOBORDHONA, P.O.
         BARPETA ROAD, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN - 78 1315



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

          REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF A SSAM
          AND CHAIRMNA
          STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE SLSC
          WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASS DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM.

         3:THE DIRECTOR AND MEMBER OF STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY
          COMMITTEE SLSC
         WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBE AND BACKWARD CLASS DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
         GUWAHATI
         ASSAM.

         4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          BAKSA
          DIST. BAKSA
         ASSAM.

         5:THE PRESIDENT
                                                                        Page No.# 2/7


           ALL ASSAM TRIBAL SANGHA
           SALBARI
           DISTRICT UNIT
           P.O. SOLBARI DIST. BAKSA
           ASSAM
           PIN - 781315.

           6:SRI ASHOK ROY CHOUDHURY
            S/O LT. CHITTARANJAN ROY C/O ROY AUTO ENGINEERING WORK VILL-
           KALABANGHA P.O. BARPETA ROAD
           WARD NO. 4
            BARPETA
           ASSAM PIN - 781315

                                      BEFORE

               Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner :    Shri A. I. Uddin, Advocate.
Advocates for respondents :      Shri R. Dhar, SC, Tribal Affairs.

Shri N. Das, GA, Ms. B. Sarma, CGC, Shri G. Goswami, Advocate, R-6.

Date of hearing                 : 15.07.2025
Date of judgment                : 15.07.2025


                                JUDGMENT & ORDER

An order dated 21.12.2025 passed by the Govt. of Assam, Department of Welfare of Plain Tribes & Backward Classes, Dispur whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner as Scheduled Caste (ST) was cancelled is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts as projected in brief are that the petitioner is the son of one Raju Boro, who originally belonged to the Nepali Community. However, the mother of Page No.# 3/7

the petitioner belongs to Bodo Community. It is also the case of the petitioner that the paternal grandmother of the petitioner is also from the Bodo Community. It has been averred that the father of the petitioner was adopted by a Bodo family. The petitioner was accordingly granted a ST caste certificate which was however, the subject matter of a complaint lodged by the respondent no. 6. The said complaint was looked into which culminated in the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 whereby the caste certificate has been cancelled.

3. I have heard Shri A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Tribal Affairs Department; Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel for the Official respondents; Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC and Shri G. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

4. Shri Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 the caste status as ST of both the father of the petitioner and the petitioner have been interfered with. He has submitted that the present challenge is only with regard to the cancellation of the caste status as ST of the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order has proceeded on the presumption regarding the adoption of the father of the petitioner, who is admittedly from the Nepali Community and was adopted by a Bodo Community family. The impugned order has recorded that such adoption was not valid in the eyes of law and therefore the impugned decision was rendered. He has submitted that the aspect as to whether the petitioner was brought up in an environment of the Bodo Community was not given any heed at all. He has emphasized that the mother of the petitioner was from the Bodo Community and he was born in the Bodo Society and this aspect has not been dealt with at all in the impugned order.

Page No.# 4/7

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:

i. (2012) 3 SCC 400 (Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.).

ii. (2015) 4 SCC 1 (K. P. Manu Vs Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate).

6. In the case of Rameshbhai (supra), the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"43. In view of the analysis of the earlier decisions and the discussion made above, the legal position that seems to emerge is that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. The determination of caste of a person born of an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. In an inter- caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by people outside the community as well."

7. Similarly in the case of K. P. Manu (supra), the following observations have been made:

"18. The Court, after referring to several decisions including the decision in C.M. Arumugam (supra), has held thus:

"31. In our opinion, the main test should be a genuine intention of the Page No.# 5/7

reconvert to abjure his new religion and completely dissociate himself from it. We must hasten to add here that this does not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a cover to gain mundane worldly benefits so that the reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a particular purpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mystery. The reconvert must exhibit a clear and genuine intention to go back to his old fold and adopt the customs and practices of the said fold without any protest from members of his erstwhile caste. In order to judge this factor, it is not necessary that there should be a direct or conclusive proof of the expression of the views of the community of the erstwhile caste and it would be sufficient compliance of this condition if no exception or protest is lodged by the community members, in which case the caste would revive on the reconversion of the person to his old religion.

32. Another aspect which one must not forget is that when a child is born neither has he any religion nor is he capable of choosing one until he reaches the age of discretion and acquires proper understanding of the situation. Hence, the mere fact that the parents of a child, who were Christians, would in ordinary course get the usual baptism certificate and perform other ceremonies without the child knowing what is being done but after the child has grown up and becomes fully mature and able to decide his future, he ought not to be bound by what his parents may have done. Therefore, in such cases, it is the intention of the convertee which would determine the revival of the caste. If by his clear and conclusive conduct the person reconverts to his old faith and abjures the new religion in unequivocal terms, his caste automatically revives."

8. Per contra, Shri Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the oral arguments presently made on behalf of the petitioner was never the case of the petitioner in the proceeding which culminated in the impugned order dated 29.12.2015. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the petitioner along with his father wherein the present ground of challenge regarding the process of being brought up has not been mentioned at all. He has submitted that the reasons cited in the impugned order are germane and appeals to a prudent person and therefore, cannot be Page No.# 6/7

the subject matter of interference by a Writ Court.

9. Shri Das, the learned State Counsel as well as Ms. Sarma, learned CGC have adopted the argument of Shri Dhar and has submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed. Shri Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has informed this Court that his client has passed away. He however adopts the argument of his colleagues appearing for the official respondents and has submitted that the complaint was filed bona fide.

10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused.

11. There is no dispute to the proposition of law and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subject concerning the present writ petition.

12. In the aforesaid two cases of Rameshbhai (supra) and K. P. Manu (supra), the aspect of the incumbent being brought up has been emphasized and it has been laid down that the said aspect would be a relevant factor for taking into consideration while determining the caste status of a particular person.

13. What is however intriguing is that in the written statement which has been annexed as Annexure-4 in the writ petition, the aforesaid aspect of how the petitioner was brought up has not even been mentioned. There is not even a whisper on the aspect that the petitioner was brought up in the Bodo Community and by all means should be treated as someone belonging to the Bodo Community and therefore was entitled to the caste certificate which was issued to him. It is also to be mentioned that the pleadings in the writ petition Page No.# 7/7

are also lacking on this aspect and only in the oral argument, this point has been taken up.

14. The scrutiny by a Writ Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 is only on the decision making process and not on the merits of the decision. In the instant case, the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 reflects that the points which were taken up in the written statement have been duly dealt with and answered. The conclusion reached by the Committee in the impugned order dated 21.12.2005 appears to be reasonable and plausible.

15. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the opinion that the present may not be a fit case for interference and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

16. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant