Delhi High Court criticises denial of caste certificate to boy raised by single mother

The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of boy who was denied a caste certificate by the authorities citing the unavailability of supporting documents from his father, who had abandoned the family fifteen years earlier. .The boy's mother also belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC) and had strained relations with her estranged husband. Although divorce proceedings had been initiated some time back, the husband later did not pursue the case which was dismissed on that ground eventually. The absence of a formal divorce decree added to the boy's difficulties in securing a caste certificate, as the authorities refused to accept the application filed on his behalf by his mother without proof of her divorce. Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that refusing to issue a caste certificate to such a child living with his single mother was not acceptable. "The Respondent’s contention that the caste certificate cannot be issued due to the absence of a decree of divorce or separation, in the opinion of the Court, is untenable in law ... In cases where women from Scheduled Caste community have been separated on account of desertion or abandonment by their husbands, their children cannot be made to suffer simply because their fathers have failed to provide them support and recognition," the Court said. .Children cannot be made to suffer simply because their fathers have failed to provide them support and recognition.Delhi High Court.It also observed that there were circulars allowing the grant of caste certificates to children on an application filed by their separated, divorced or single mother. The Court opined that these circulars would also cover the boy's mother, even if she did not have a formal divorce decree."Children should not be penalized because their father chose abandonment over legal finality," the Court added..The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a then-17-year old boy (petitioner) through his mother, seeking the issue of a caste certificate in his favor. His mother had been raising the petitioner single-handedly since 2009, after being abandoned by her husband. Though his father filed for divorce in 2011, he later did not pursue the proceedings, which were closed in 2014.Despite several applications, the petitioner’s request for a caste certificate was repeatedly denied by the authorities. Officials insisted that the application must include the father's caste certificate. This position persisted even after the petitioner’s mother obtained her own caste certificate in March 2023..The petitioner relied on circulars issued on July 20, 2020, and July 13, 2022, which allow caste certificates to be issued to the children of separated or single mothers. However, the government maintained that the petitioner did not meet the criteria under these circulars and insisted on a caste certificate from the paternal side, claiming the absence of such proof was a barrier..The Court noted that the petitioner’s mother had been abandoned by her husband for over fifteen years and was left to single-handedly fulfill parental responsibilities. It emphasized that this prolonged desertion of was equivalent to a separation."The expression 'separated/ divorced/ single women' (in the circulars issued in 2020 and 2022) cannot be construed narrowly to deprive the Petitioner of equitable relief. Such an interpretation would frustrate the very purpose of the circulars meant to accommodate children whose paternal ties are severed de facto, if not de jure. To insist on a judicial separation order or a divorce decree is to insist on form over substance, ignoring the lived truth of a deserted family unit," the Court said.Accordingly, court directed the authorities to review the petitioner's application for a caste certificate within two weeks after receiving such an application. The Court made it clear that such an application should not be rejected solely because the petitioner’s mother does not possess a formal decree of divorce or judicial separation..The petitioner was represented by advocates Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj and Shagun Agarwal.Additional Standing Counsel Prashant Manchanda, along with advocates Nancy Shah and Isha Baloni represented the Delhi government. .[Read Judgement]