Editor,
In 2022, Arunachal Pradesh issued the “Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuance Guidelines, 2022,” stipulating that such certificates may be revoked in cases involving fraud, misrepresentation, the provision of false information, or the concealment of facts. In response, various tribal forums and student organizations have staged protests, submitted memorandums, and demanded measures ranging from the mass verification and re-issuance of certificates, including digitization to prevent forgery-to stricter enforcement of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system. Some groups have even gone so far as to demand that APST women who marry non-APST men surrender their certificates and associated benefits. Now, the Arunachal Scheduled Tribes Bachao Andolan Committee (ASTBAC) has once again called for a review of APST certificates, this demand has sparked widespread reflection and raised significant legal questions.
In Arunachal Pradesh, the determination of ST status for children born of inter-ethnic marriages strictly adheres to the principles and policies of patrilineal descent. I have often pondered: is this policy of determination fair? Is it rational? When the father is an ST member, the child typically faces fewer hurdles in obtaining community recognition (via village councils, GBs, etc.), as the family unit operates within the framework of patrilineal lineage and customs. Consequently, the offspring encounter little to no systemic opposition and are able to enjoy the benefits of reservation policies, land rights, and other indigenous entitlements. However, when the mother is an ST member and the father is not, even if the child adopts the mother’s surname or claims cultural assimilation, such cases are frequently deemed instances of misrepresentation. Pursuant to Article 342 of the Constitution, indigenous status is established by virtue of birth within a recognized tribe or community, rather than being automatically conferred based solely on the status of either parent. Supreme Court rulings regarding ST rights in mixed marriages have consistently emphasized the primacy of community recognition and upbringing within a tribal milieu, while cautioning against the automatic conferral of rights. Evidently, the current regulations in Arunachal Pradesh fail to align with these judicial precedents; instead, they serve to curtail the personal marital autonomy of women and infringe upon the rights of children. Viewed through the lens of strict formal equality, this approach is undeniably discriminatory.
Regardless of whether an APST woman marries a non-APST man, or an APST man marries a non-APST woman, the offspring in both scenarios possess a shared lineage rooted in the APST community. If the intent is to enforce these regulations with absolute rigor, then to ensure the purity and legitimacy of the bloodline, the logical corollary would be to mandate that APST men, too, be permitted to marry only APST women.
Therefore, I believe that the re-examination and revocation of ST certificates should be approached on a case-by-case basis, while giving full consideration to how best to safeguard the rights and interests of APST women and their descendants.
Likha Tana
