RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 18-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 104 
RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 654 of 2012) · 
JANUARY 18, 2012 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
SOCIAL STATUS CERT/FICA TE: Scheduled Castel 
Tribe - Status of a person, one of whose parents belongs to 
C the Scheduled Caste/Tribe and the other comes from the 
upper castes, or more precisely does not come from 
Scheduled Caste/Tribe and entitlement of a person from such 
parents to the benefits of affirmative action sanctioned by the 
Constitution - Held: Rule laid down in *Valsamma Paul, 
o **Punit Rai and ***Anjan Kumar is not an inflexible rule of 
general application that in all cases and regardless of other 
considerations, the offspring of an inter-caste marriage or a 
marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal would take his/her 
caste from the father - A careful examination of these cases 
E together with some other decisions of Supreme Court would 
clearly show that what was said in Valsamma in a certain 
context was rather mechanically and inappropriately extended 
and applied to different other fact situations as the law laid 
down in Valsamma - In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage 
F 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 - In 
such marriages, there may be a presumption that the child 
has the caste of the father - This presumption may be stronger 
G in 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 
H 
104 
RAMESHBHAI DABHAI NAIKA v. STATE OF 
105 
GUJARAT & ORS. 
up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/ A 
scheduled tribe - In such situation, merely 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 
B 
belonged - In the case in hand the tribal certificate of the 
appellant was cancelled without adverting to any evidences 
and on the sole ground that he was the son of a Kshatriya 
father - The orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny 
Committee, therefore, cannot be sustained - Matter remitted c 
to Scrutiny Committee to take fresh decision - Evidence -
Presumption. 
The mother of the appellant was a Nayak, one of the 
scheduled tribes and the appellant himself and his other 
siblings were also married to Nayaks. His father was a D 
non-tribal. The Scrutiny Committee cancelled the tribal 
certificate earlier obtained by the appellant on the sole 
ground that his father was a non-tribal, belonging to the 
Hindu caste Kshatriya. The High Court proceeded on the 
basis that the issue was settled by the decisions of the 
E 
Supreme Court in *Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University 
followed by **Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary and ***Anjan 
Kumar v. Union of India and upheld the order of the 
Committee. 
F 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was as to what would be the status of a 
person, one of whose parents belongs to the scheduled 
castes/scheduled tribes and the other comes from the 
upper castes, or more precisely does not come from 
G 
scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and what would be 
the entitlement of a person from such parents to the 
benefits of affirmative action sanctioned by the 
Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The orders passed by the High Court and 
the Scrutiny Committee are set aside and the case is . 
remitted to the Scrutiny Committee to take a fresh 
decision on the basis of the evidences that might be led 
by the two sides. The High Court seemed to have read 
B the decisions in *Valsamma Paul, **Punit Rai and ***Anjan 
Kumar as laying down the rule that in all cases and 
regardless of other considerations, the offspring of an . 
inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a 
non-tribal would take his/her caste from the father. In the 
c three decisions, there were indeed observations (though 
by no means forming the ratio of the decisions) that may 
lend credence to such a view but the quest

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.