INTRODUCTION
Caste is often seen as a past era thing in modern constitutional India, something we would like to get rid of. However, it is still the main factor, legally speaking, when it comes to access to education, public employment, political representation, and social justice protections.[1] The reservation policies under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Constitution are based on caste identity, thus making the question of caste determination very significant.[2] India had a patrilineal society traditionally, where the caste of a child was determined automatically by the father’s caste.[3] This assumption was mirrored in administration and in the courts as well. But the changing social scenario, inter-caste marriages, single-parent families, and constitutional equality have forced the Supreme Court of India to review this inflexible standard. The last few decades have seen the Court movement gradually towards a more sophisticated, reality-based approach, acknowledging that a child’s caste may, in some cases, be traced through the mother.[4] This change is not purely technical; it signifies a radical rethinking of lineage, identity, and constitutional justice.[5]
THE TRADITIONAL RULE: FATHER’S CASTE AS THE DEFAULT
For a long time, India’s juristic history was greatly influenced by a primitive rule in determining caste: the creature takes over the father’s caste[6]. This practice supported the patriarchal system of Hindu law and social customs, where family, property, and status were passed down through men. The rule was an easier way of handling things from the administrative point of view. The caste certificates that were being issued by the authorities were hardly ever based on the upbringing or the social environment; the father’s caste certificate alone was enough[7]. What was more, judicial decisions, especially those made before the 1990s, largely favoured this presumption as well[8]. But this model was not without its serious limitations since it operated on the following assumptions: a stable patriarchal family structure[9], that the father was the socially and culturally dominant person in the child’s upbringing, and that caste identity is determined at birth rather than being influenced by people’s experience[10]. These assumptions became less and less viable as Indian society changed.[11]
SOCIAL CHANGE AND CONSTITUTIONAL TENSIONS
The patrilineal rule, which was very strict, faced considerable difficulty through the process of social change in the following ways: Inter-caste marriages, especially between upper-caste men and women from Scheduled Castes or Tribes, became more common. Mothers raising their children alone with no fathers around, either due to separation, death, or abandonment. More and more women were regarded as equal to men under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In most of these scenarios, the children were brought up in the mother’s community, and they were subjected to the same social discrimination, stigma, and economic disadvantage of her caste. But often the law denied them caste recognition because of the identity of the father. This scenario led to a conflict with the Constitution: children suffering caste-based disadvantages were not able to access the legal protection that was supposed to be provided for them. The Supreme Court was thus compelled to deal with the crucial issue of whether a caste should be determined by the bloodline or the actual social experience.
THE SUPREME COURT’S TURNING POINT: FROM LINEAGE TO LIVED EXPERIENCE
A key change in legal doctrine was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat (2012)[12]. The Court in this case turned down the automatic assumption that a child of an inter-caste marriage should always follow the father’s caste. Besides, the Court laid down that the caste of a child must be ascertained with respect to the facts of his/her upbringing, and those facts are:
- The parent who brought up the child mainly,
- The social setting in which the child was raised,
- Whether the child went through the hardships connected with the claimed caste.
The Court made it clear that, in terms of the Constitution, caste is no longer a question of birth alone but also of social acceptance and living through advantage. A child who is raised by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe mother, within her community, can’t be denied caste status just because the father is from a forward caste. This rationale represented a turning point from an official, birth-based approach to a ground-breaking, experience-based approach.
GENDER JUSTICE AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE MOTHER’S IDENTITY
The most important impact of this change is the one it has on gender justice. In the past, the mother’s caste identity was not recognised by law at all after she married into a different caste. The Supreme Court’s developing jurisprudence has been a big step towards making this issue visible. The Court, by allowing a child to inherit the caste from the mother:
- Confirms women’s equal constitutional rights as bearers of social identity,
- Discards the archaic notion that only the father determines the child’s social position,[13]
- Brings the caste law in line with Articles 14 and 15, which forbid sex-based discrimination.
This change is even more significant in instances where women from lower caste families marry men from upper caste families. Children born from such unions will be stripped of their constitutional rights due to the non-recognition of the maternal caste. Thus, the law would be inadvertently supporting the oppression of these children rather than relieving it.
IMPLICATIONS FOR LAW, POLICY, AND SOCIETY
The ruling of the Supreme Court has implications that stretch far beyond the government litigation. The administrative side requires the caste-certifying authorities to be more sensitive and evidence-based in their approach. On the social side, it approves various family arrangements and disputes rigid identity concepts.
Law students and lawyers will find this case law pointing to a larger constitutional transition:[14]
- Going from formal equality to substantial equality,
- Putting more weight on context, lived experience, and social disadvantage,
- The court’s willingness to reinterpret tradition in the light of constitutional morality.
Moreover, it leads to the essential questions of the future, such as: How should caste be comprehended in the context of society, which is increasingly becoming a fluid one? Is it possible to view identity as both inherited and experiential? And what is the legal response to intersectional disadvantage?
CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A MORE HUMANE UNDERSTANDING OF IDENTITY
The Supreme Court’s changing viewpoint on casting a child’s caste through the mother signifies more than a legal technicality; it is a redefining of justice. By abandoning stringent and patriarchal lineage, the Court has through its ruling put caste jurisprudence in line with the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and social justice The law by treating the mother as an equal possessor of the caste identity, treats the disadvantage as something that is not just an abstract concept but as something that is lived, suffered, and internalized through everyday Life. However, this transformation does not put an end to the caste system overnight; on the contrary, it makes sure that constitutional safeguards reach the most deserving ones.[15] This jurisprudence is a silent but potent step forward changing the course of lineage not merely by blood but by justice, for a society that still struggles with the legacy of caste, and at the same time aiming at equality.
Author’s Name: Ritika Pal (St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata)
[1] Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1993) Supp (3) SCC 217 (SC)
[2] Constitution of India, arts 15(4), 15(5), 16(4)
[3] Valsamma Paul v Cochin University (1996) 3 SCC 545 (SC).
[4] Dayaram v Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 333 (SC).
[5] Charu Khurana v Union of India (2015) 1 SCC 192 (SC).
[6] B K Matilal, ‘Caste, Birth and Social Identity in Hindu Law’ (1991) 33 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 112
[7] Kumari Madhuri Patil v Addl Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 (SC).
[8] Punit Rai v Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 (SC).
[9] Valsamma Paul v Cochin University (1996) 3 SCC 545 (SC).
[10] State of Kerala v Chandramohanan (2004) 3 SCC 429 (SC).
[11] Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v State of Gujarat (2012) 3 SCC 400 (SC).
Marc Galanter, Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India (Oxford University Press 1
984).
[12] Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v State of Gujarat (2012) 3 SCC 400 (SC).
[13] Supreme Court Allows SC Certificate for Girl Based on Mother’s Caste, Not Non-SC Father’ (The Times of India, 14 November 2024) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-allows-sc-certificate-for-girl-based-caste-of-mom-not-non-sc-dad/articleshow/125853399.cms > accessed 15 January 2026
[14] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.
[15] Anjan Kumar v Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 257; State of Maharashtra v Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4.
