Migrant Women Cannot Claim Caste Reservation Benefits in Destination State Post-Marriage: Himachal HC

Shimla: In a significant verdict, a division bench led by the Chief Justice of the Himachal High Court, comprising Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chandra Negi, clarified that women from other states who settle in Himachal after marriage cannot be granted the benefits of caste-based reservation.

The Court stated that upon marrying into a family and settling in Himachal from another state, women cannot continue to avail the benefits of reservation under the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court observed that an individual's eligibility for caste-based reservation cannot be transferred to another state solely based on marriage.

Earlier, three separate Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) regarding reservation-related matters had reached the Himachal High Court. These LPAs were filed on behalf of petitioners Jaswinder Kaur, Sarvjit Saini, and Anu Rani.

The separate petitions argued that these women—originally residents of Punjab and Haryana—had married men belonging to their own respective castes within Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently, they were issued 'Bonafide Himachali' certificates, attesting to their permanent residency in the state. Based on these certificates, they claimed eligibility for government jobs and other reservation-related benefits in Himachal.

However, the state government rejected their claims, citing the fact that they were not residents of Himachal Pradesh by birth. Consequently, they could not be granted reservation benefits within the state.

Two of the petitioners belonged to the Saini caste of Punjab, which falls under the OBC category in that state. The third petitioner belonged to the Valmiki community of Haryana, which holds Scheduled Caste (SC) status there.

Consequently, the women petitioners appealed to the Court, arguing that since they had married men belonging to their own respective castes, their reservation rights should be upheld in Himachal Pradesh as well.

High Court upholds state government's stance

In this matter, the division bench upheld the validity of the state government's decision. In its verdict, the court stated that the Supreme Court has already explicitly clarified that an individual cannot be granted the benefit of reservation in a state where they relocate and settle solely by virtue of marriage.

Consequently, the Court is bound to adhere to this ruling of the Supreme Court. In accordance with judicial tradition and the doctrine of precedents, the court cannot deliver a verdict deviating from this position. The court further clarified that the classification of SCs, STs, and OBCs is determined on a 'state-wise' basis; the benefits thereof are available only within the specific state where the concerned community has been officially notified.

The court cited the judgment delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand. In this case, which pertained to the transferability of reservation benefits, the Supreme Court had declined to grant SC reservation benefits in Uttarakhand to a woman belonging to the Valmiki community of Punjab, following her marriage and subsequent relocation to Uttarakhand.

Read more

1. Himachal Govt Bars Employees From Directly Approaching Court With Grievance On Transfer