6 min readNew DelhiAug 31, 2026 10:29 AM IST
A child’s reservation rights cannot be denied simply because caste is traced through the father, the Madras High Court has held, rejecting Puducherry’s “patriarchal society” argument. It ruled that children born and brought up in Puducherry can claim Scheduled Caste (SC), Most Backward Class (MBC) or Other Backward Class (OBC) status through their Puducherry-native mother when both parents belong to the same community, holding that social disadvantage — not whether lineage is patrilineal or matrilineal — is what matters.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a batch of 28 petitions concerning community certificates and reservation benefits in education and employment under the Puducherry administration. The common question before the court was whether candidates could claim SC, MBC or OBC status based on their mother’s nativity when their fathers, though belonging to the same caste, were migrants from other states.
“It is considered fair when a male marries a woman from another state, and the child is born in Puducherry and lives there; the benefit of reservation is granted. If only the female marries a person from another state, even if the male comes and lives in Puducherry and the child is born and brought up in the caste of the mother and the surroundings, the benefit is denied. The basis of reservation is only social disadvantage and the sufferings and stigma attached to the child; that is the primordial factor for conferring the benefit. Whether it is patrilineal or matrilineal makes no difference,” the court said on August 27.
The candidates in question were born and brought up in Puducherry and had studied there. Their mothers were Puducherry natives with SC, MBC or OBC origin-status certificates, while their fathers were mostly from neighbouring Tamil Nadu districts. In some cases, the fathers claimed Puducherry origin but lacked documents such as their grandfather’s certificate to prove it.
Both parents belonged to the same community, and neither the candidates’ caste nor their Puducherry native status was disputed. The administration was willing to issue certificates with a “migrant” tag, but these could not be used for reservation in education or employment under the Puducherry administration.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy examined an earlier Supreme Court ruling which dealt with whether a child could claim community status through the mother.
Rejects ‘patriarchal society’ argument
The Puducherry administration contended that caste should be traced in a patrilineal manner because society was patriarchal and that, in the absence of a statutory provision or entitlement, it could not be traced through the mother.
The court said that although Indian society had historically been patriarchal, such a position could not continue to be presumed or perpetuated in the face of Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (protection against discrimination) and 16 (equal opportunity for all in employment) of the Constitution.
Story continues below this ad
“The traditional belief that vamsam or lineage can only be patriarchal and that the woman takes the domicile of a man are all such stereotypes developed only because of a misogynistic society, compelling women to follow the same,” the court said.
Key test: Social disadvantage
The court examined the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naik v State of Gujarat, which dealt with whether a child could claim community status through the mother.
It noted that while there may be a presumption in an inter-caste marriage that a child takes the father’s caste, that presumption is neither conclusive nor unchallengeable. A child could show that he or she was brought up in the mother’s SC or ST community and suffered the same deprivations, indignities, humiliation and handicaps as other members of that community.
The high court said the ultimate test was which caste the child was brought up in and whether the child faced the deprivations, indignities, humiliations and handicaps associated with that community. Whether the claim was made through the father or mother was not itself decisive.
Story continues below this ad
Applying that principle, the court said the facts of the present cases were significant as both parents belonged to the same caste, the mothers were Puducherry natives continuing to live in the same community, and the fathers had come to Puducherry.
Where a child was perceived as belonging to the mother’s community and was brought up in that community, the court said the facts and circumstances had to be considered. It held that there need not be a separate enabling statutory provision to grant a community certificate by considering the mother’s nativity.
Earlier rule struck down
The judge traced Puducherry’s November 10, 2000 memorandum, which required SC-origin status to be determined only by the father’s residence. The Madras High Court struck it down in P Jeya v Union of India under Articles 14 and 15, and upheld the earlier 1995 rule allowing the origin of either parent to be considered.
The Supreme Court later dismissed the appeal while keeping the larger question of law open. The high court noted that subsequent division benches had repeatedly directed authorities to consider community certificates based on the mother’s origin.
Story continues below this ad
The court set aside the rejection orders and directed authorities to issue SC, MBC or OBC certificates, as applicable, with origin status based on the mother’s nativity. The candidates were also held entitled to reservation benefits in Puducherry education and employment.
The court clarified that the claims could still be rejected if the caste claim was false or the mother’s nativity was not established.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy examined an earlier Supreme Court ruling which dealt with whether a child could claim community status through the mother.