Inter Caste Marriage Certificate Download Tamilnadu

The Madras High Court has held that a person will not be entitled to an inter-caste marriage certificate if he actually belonged to a Scheduled Caste but had obtained a Backward Class certificate after converting to Christianity and then married a Scheduled Caste woman.

Justice S.M. Subramaniam held so, while dismissing a writ petition filed by an engineer against the refusal of the Mettur Tahsildar to issue an inter- caste marriage certificate, though he had married a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) community.

Download 🔥 https://cinurl.com/2y3iMY 🔥

The judge said, the object behind issuance of inter-caste marriage certificates was to provide certain welfare schemes. In such circumstances, when both the husband and wife belong to the same caste, they would not be entitled to the certificate for the purpose of availing of the benefits under various schemes.

An applicant can apply for the Inter-caste Marriage Certificate using his/her unique CAN number. If the applicant doesn't have a unique CAN Number, he must register for CAN to access the application form for an Inter-caste Marriage certificate.

It was only after agitation from anti-caste activists such as Kowsalya, vice-president of the Thamizham Manavurimai Sangam, an organisation that helps inter-caste couples, that Guruswamy was released.

Informed by her own past, Kowsalya now provides support to persecuted inter-caste couples and told the News Minute that a Bill needs to be passed to prevent such honour killings if vulnerable couples are to be protected.

When the Salem district authorities refused to issue the certificate, registering that both husband and wife in fact belonged to the SC community by birth, Raj filed a writ of mandamus petition seeking the inter-caste marriage certificate be issued.

However, advocate C. Jayaprakash, appearing for the state government, stated that a clarification issued by the Social Welfare Department through letter no. 235, issued on July 21, 1997, notes that a community certificate obtained as a result of religious conversion does not warrant an inter-caste marriage certificate.

The state government initiated the Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy Ammaiyar Ninaivu (Memorial) Intercaste Marriage Assistance Scheme in 1968 to abolish discrimination based on caste by encouraging intercaste marriages.

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court held that the failure or delay in submitting an inter-caste marriage certificate cannot be a ground for government to deny a job under the inter-caste marriage quota.

The petitioner alleged that though he scored 115 marks in the examination conducted for the post, he was denied the offer for the reason that he failed to submit the SSLC certificate and the inter-caste marriage certificate.

Recording the submissions, the judge held that a candidate who scored the highest mark of 115 need not be denied merely on the ground that he took some more time to furnish the original copy of the SSLC Book and the inter-caste marriage certificate.

Justice Subramaniam also held that the fact remains that the inter-caste marriage was registered in the District Employment Exchange and the Employment Exchange Registration Card was also produced before the competent authority.

This is primarily a hurdle for inter-caste and inter-religious marriages, which almost never happen with the prior consent of families. In fact, the practice of summoning parents has evolved as a means to prevent such unions of personal choice.

Instead of addressing the issue and following the law, a circular was released which further impeded inter-caste marriages during the previous All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government.

Soon after the circular was passed, it resulted in a hue and cry in the state. However, three and half years later the practice of summoning parents is firmly in place, and it is valid for whichever Act one chooses to be married under. This is the scenario in a state that prides itself on anti-ritual and anti-caste marriages.

In order to remove caste barrier in the society this scheme has been implemented. Inter caste married Couple can apply within two years from the inter caste marriage at Common Service Centre provided one of the couple should belong to ( SC/ST) and other should belong to (BC/FC).

The Madras High Court has ruled that the caste of a person remains unchanged after getting converted from one religion to another, and based on the same, no inter-caste marriage certificate can be issued.

While so, petitioner, relying on a GO of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms department dated December 28, 1976, submitted an application for grant of inter-caste marriage certificate for availing the benefits of priority in public employment.

When both the petitioner and his wife belong to Scheduled Caste community by birth, merely because the petitioner by virtue of conversion changed the religion would not entail him to get the inter-caste marriage certificate, the court ruled.

The very purpose and object of issuance of inter-caste marriage certificate is to provide certain welfare schemes and in such circumstances the classification of various castes as Backward Class, Scheduled Caste, Most Backward Class and others cannot be a ground to claim inter-caste marriage certificate.

It is the caste/community which has to be taken into consideration and when both the husband and wife belong to the same, then they are not entitled for the inter-caste marriage certificate for the purpose of availing the benefits under various schemes.

In 2002, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature (which consists of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly) passed the Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002, which was later signed into law by Governor C. Rangarajan. It allows the Registrar of Marriages to issue a marriage certificate upon reception of a memorandum of marriage filed by the spouses. The Registrar may refuse to issue the license if the parties fail to meet the requirements to marry under the national law of their religion or community. The Act defines marriage as "all marriages performed by persons belonging to any caste or religion and also the marriages performed as per any custom, practices or any traditions including the marriages performed in the tribal areas and the word 'marriage' also includes 'remarriage'".[27] The Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride and bridegroom".[27]

In August 2006, Governor R. S. Gavai ordered the publication of the Bihar Marriage Registration Rules, 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Bihar irrespective of the religion of the parties. They allow the Marriage Registrar to issue a marriage certificate upon reception of a memorandum of marriage filed by the spouses. The Registrar may refuse to issue the license if the parties fail to meet the requirements to marry under the national law of their religion or community. The Rules do not explicitly define marriage but generally refer to married spouses as "husband and wife".[43] The ruling party of Bihar, the centre-left Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party, does not have an official stance on same-sex marriages. In May 2023, RJD Vice-President Shivanand Tiwari expressed his support for same-sex marriage.[44]

The Government of Chhattisgarh published the Chhattigsarh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006 in November 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Chhattisgarh irrespective of the religion of the parties. They allow the Registrar of Marriages to issue a marriage certificate upon reception of a memorandum of marriage filed by the spouses. The Registrar may refuse to issue the license if the parties fail to meet the requirements to marry under the national law of their religion or community. The Rules define marriage as "all marriages solemnized, performed or contracted between a male and a female, irrespective of the religion or caste of either party to the marriage, and also includes marriages performed as per law, custom practice or any tradition of either party to the marriage and includes a re-marriage."[50]

The Delhi High Court set a hearing for all three petitions on 8 January 2021. On that day, Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula granted "one last opportunity" to the Union Government to file official responses to the three petitions.[58] The court scheduled further deliberations for 25 February 2021. The Union Government was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. On 25 February, the government asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss the cases, arguing in its response that marriage is based on "age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values" and that there thus exists a "legitimate state interest" in preventing same-sex couples from marrying.[59][60] A fourth petition, Udit Sood and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr, was filed in February 2021. The petitioners, three men and one woman, represented by advocates Meghna Mishra and Tahira Karanjawala, asked the court to declare that the SMA applies to any two persons who wish to marry regardless of sex. Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal asked the government to respond to the petition.[61] On 24 May 2021, the government asked the court to delay deliberations on the four petitions, stating that "nobody is dying because of the lack of marriage registration" and that the government's focus were on "urgent and immediate" pandemic-related issues.[62][63] A fifth petition, Joydeep Sengupta v. Union of India & Ors, was filed by Joydeep Sengupta, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), and his American partner Russell Blaine Stephens in July 2021. The couple argued that the Citizenship Act, 1955 does not distinguish between different-sex and same-sex spouses and that the same-sex spouse of an OCI should be eligible to apply for an OCI card. The plea further claimed that the Foreign Marriage Act violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in excluding the recognition of foreign same-sex marriages.[64] On 6 July 2021, the division bench of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh listed the petitions for hearing on 27 August.[65] ff782bc1db