Orissa High Court
Dipendri Nag @ Deepandri Nag vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15790 of 2023
Dipendri Nag @ Deepandri Nag .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For petitioner : Mr. A. K. Acharya, Advocate
For opposite parties : Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 18.05.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
and submits, impugned is order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed by the
Collector, on appeal preferred against order dated 21st December, 2021
passed by the Tahsildar, refusing to issue caste certificate to his client.
2. He submits, there is no dispute his client was born into
scheduled caste 'Gonda' family. On query from Court he submits, in
year, 2019 she married a Christian. However that cannot cause her to
lose her identity as belonging to the scheduled caste.
W.P.(C) No.15790 of 2023
// 2 //
3. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunita Singh
v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 493, paragraph 5,
reproduced below.
"5. There cannot be any dispute that the caste is
determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by
marriage with a person of scheduled caste. Undoubtedly,
the appellant was born in "Agarwal" family, which falls in
general category and not in scheduled caste. Merely
because her husband is belonging to a scheduled caste
category, the appellant should not have been issued with a
caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste. In
that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the
judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted."
(emphasis supplied)
He also relies on majority view of said Court in V.V. Giri Vs. D. Suri
Dora, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1318, paragraphs 23 and 24 (SCC
online print).
4. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, there should not be
interference.
5. The Supreme Court declared the law to be that a person is
born into a caste. It cannot be changed by marriage. In other words,
being born into an upper caste, one cannot become scheduled caste by
marrying a person, who belongs to one. There cannot be any dispute
with the proposition. Petitioner's case is to the contrary. The question
W.P.(C) No.15790 of 2023
// 3 //
is whether she renounced her caste by embracing Christianity, on
having married a Christian.
6. In an otherwise situation contemplated in V.V. Giri (supra)
the Supreme Court said as would appear from a passage extracted from
paragraph 24, reproduced below.
"24. ... ... ... The High Court has held that even if the
documentary and oral evidence adduced by the appellant is
accepted at its face value, it falls far short of establishing
his plea that respondent had become a kshatriya at the
material time. The caste-status of a person in the context
would necessarily have to be determined in the light of the
recognition received by him from the members of the
caste into which he seeks an entry. "
(emphasis supplied)
Above indicates it is possible for a person to seek entry into a caste. It
follows that the converse, of renouncing a caste is, therefore, possible.
7. In impugned order it is recorded that petitioner had stated she
is Hindu by birth and she is still practising Hindu rituals even after her
marriage. The appellate authority, in considering rival submissions,
went on to hold as will appear from two paragraphs, reproduced from
impugned order.
"Sufficient time was given to the petitioner to produce any
valid documents according to her claim. But the petitioner
failed to produce any valid documents.
After hearing the petitioner, Tahasildar, Loisingha &
going through the available documents, I am led to the
conclusion that, the petitioner failed to show any proof
W.P.(C) No.15790 of 2023
// 4 //
towards her claim that, she is practicing Hindu religion.
Whereas, as per the report of Tahasildar, Loisingha after
her marriage to one Rahul Senapati, S/0- Santosh
Senapati, Vill-Brahmanipali, PS-Loisingha, Dist.-
Bolangir, the petitioner is now practicing Christianity,
hence the order dtd.24.12.2021 passed by the Tahasildar,
Loisingha in Caste Certificate application No. E-
SCO/2021/404379, dtd. 15.11.2021 of the petitioner is
hereby upheld. Intimate the petitioner & Tahasildar,
Loisingha accordingly."
8. On query from Court Mr. Acharya submits, there has been
omission to positively state in the petition that his client is still a
practising Hindu. He prays for leave to allow his client to put in
additional affidavit containing the averment. This leave, Court is not
inclined to grant.
9. As aforesaid, there was statement made by petitioner before
the Tahsildar as well as the appellate authority that she is a practising
Hindu. She was disbelieved by both the authorities on basis of report of
the Revenue Inspector, relied upon by the Tahsildar. Petitioner in
paragraphs 5 and 6 said so. The paragraphs are reproduced below.
"5. That under the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner
filed her application for the Opposite Party No.3-
Tahasildar, Luisinga with requisite documents for issuance
of a caste certificate in her favour. The Opposite Party
No.3 by order dated 21st December, 2021 was pleased to
reject her application for grant of caste certificate in her
favour on the ground that the Petitioner after her
W.P.(C) No.15790 of 2023
// 5 //
marriage with one Rahul Kumar Senapati, who belongs to
Gonda Christian by caste and practicing Christianism and
there for SC certificate cannot be issued in her favour.
The copy of the order dated 21st December, 2021 passed by
Opposite Party No.3 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE-2.
6. That the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed
by the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-2 approached
the Opposite Party No.2 in Misc. Certificate Appeal Case
No.1 of 2022 and that the Opposite Party No.2, vide order
dated 23rd March, 2023 under Annexure-1 basing upon the
order of the Tahasildar-Opposite Party No.3 came to a
conclusion that after the marriage, the Petitioner is
practising Christianism. Therefore, she is not entitled to a
Schedule Caste Certificate"
(emphasis supplied)
10. In spite of above statements of the writ petition, petitioner
omitted to state on oath therein, she is still a practising Hindu. In the
circumstances, view taken by both the authorities appear to be a
possible view.
11. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
W.P.(C) No.15790 of 2023
