Andhra Pradesh High Court Ends Two-Decade Legal Fight Over ST Status
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has brought a dramatic close to a legal battle that lasted more than twenty years. The court set aside a government order which had rejected a petitioner's claim to Scheduled Tribe status. Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy delivered the landmark judgment on January 8, allowing the writ petition filed by Atlapakala Rama Krishna back in 2009.
Court Rules Burden of Proof Lies with Authorities
In a significant legal pronouncement, Justice Reddy emphasized that the burden of proof does not rest on the individual claiming ST status. The judge stated clearly that the authority disputing the social status must demonstrate the candidate does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. This principle shifts the onus from the petitioner to the government officials challenging their caste claim.
The case originated from a September 2005 order by the East Godavari district collector. This order cancelled Rama Krishna's caste certificate. The state Social Welfare Department later confirmed this decision in 2009. Authorities had rejected his claim to the same social status as his father, citing insufficient documentary evidence provided during their inquiry.
A Family's Long Struggle for Recognition
According to the petitioner, he and his family members belong to the Konda Kapu caste. This community is listed as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order of 1950. They are residents of agency tracks, which are tribal areas in the present East Godavari District.
Rama Krishna submitted that throughout his educational career, he was consistently considered a member of the Konda Kapu ST community. There was one exception during his BSc Agriculture studies. Based on an inquiry, the director of tribal welfare informed the Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University in September 2001 that the petitioner did not belong to the Konda Kapu community.
This notification sparked the long legal conflict. Appeals by the petitioner culminated in the 2005 order by the district collector cancelling his caste certificate. His subsequent appeal before the department was also rejected in 2009.
Conflicting Records and Legal Arguments
The respondents presented conflicting documentation. They noted that the Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of Atapakala Bennaswami, the petitioner's father, recorded the caste as Konda Kapu ST. However, particulars obtained from the Sub-Registrar in Prathipadu revealed that the petitioner's family members belonged to the Kapu community, which falls under the open category.
Authorities argued that while the petitioner received multiple notices to attend hearings with documentary evidence, he did not file any written arguments in response. They maintained this lack of response justified their decision.
Court Rejects Lack of Evidence as Grounds for Denial
The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, reached a different conclusion. Justice Reddy noted that mere non-adducing of documentary evidence by the petitioner during inquiries is not sufficient grounds to reject his caste claim. The legal responsibility lies with the authority challenging the status.
The judgment reaffirmed a crucial legal precedent from the Syamala Rama Raju Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Department case. The court held it is well-established that children inherit the social status of their father. Therefore, the petitioner, being the son, is entitled to the same social status as his father.
Final Relief After Decades of Uncertainty
Justice Reddy concluded that both the 2005 and 2009 orders were liable to be set aside. The court allowed the writ petition, providing significant relief to Atlapakala Rama Krishna. His social status had been under continuous dispute since 2001, affecting various aspects of his life for over two decades.
This judgment clarifies important legal principles regarding caste certification and the distribution of evidentiary burden in such disputes. It establishes that authorities cannot simply reject claims based on a petitioner's failure to produce documents without themselves proving the claim is invalid.
