Introduction:
In the case of Meghna Devi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., WP(C) No. 24429 of 2025, citation 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 565, the Kerala High Court recently addressed an important issue concerning the grant of an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate in circumstances where one parent has abandoned the family. The petition was filed by a young aspirant, Meghna Devi, who had secured Rank 54 under the EWS category for admission to the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT). However, her application for an EWS certificate was rejected by the authorities on two primary grounds—first, that her mother’s landholding exceeded the permissible limit for EWS classification, and second, that there was an anomaly in her school certificate where the name of her stepmother was recorded under the “mother’s name” column. Aggrieved by this rejection, Meghna Devi (the first petitioner) and her mother (the second petitioner) approached the Kerala High Court seeking judicial intervention. The case was heard by Justice N. Nagaresh, who had to weigh competing considerations of statutory guidelines, government orders, and equitable principles in deciding whether the petitioner was entitled to the certificate.
Arguments:
The petitioners’ arguments, represented by Advocates Akhil Raj B., Sravan M.S., U. Umesh Kumar, Arun Raj, Vishnu Vijayan, and Ameesha George, were centered around three main issues. First, they argued that the rejection on the basis of landholding was erroneous because the revenue authorities and a licensed building supervisor had already certified that only 3.5 cents of the land was residential in nature, while the remaining portion was agricultural land. Under the applicable government order G.O.(MS) No. 23/2024/P&ARD dated 27.11.2024, when a residence is located within an agricultural plot, only the built-up area, covered area, and setback are to be considered as residential land, while the rest is to be treated as agricultural. Therefore, according to the petitioners, their landholding did not cross the 4.13 cents threshold prescribed for EWS eligibility. Second, they contended that the rejection based on the father’s income was unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness and equity, as the father had deserted the family more than 12 years ago and was living abroad with another family. The petitioners pointed out that the Panchayat President had issued a certificate confirming that the second petitioner had been deserted by her husband and had not remarried, and that the Village Officer had also confirmed the same. The petitioners stressed that in such circumstances, the father’s income could not reasonably be included in assessing the family’s financial status. Third, they addressed the anomaly in the school certificate, arguing that the incorrect recording of the stepmother’s name under the “mother’s name” column in the Secondary School Certificate was a clerical error and could not override the fact that the second petitioner was indeed Meghna’s mother. A certificate from the Village Officer confirming the second petitioner’s maternity had been furnished, and therefore, the petitioners argued that the rejection on this ground was arbitrary and baseless. They further emphasized that the family’s annual income was less than ₹60,000, as certified by the revenue authorities, which placed them well within the EWS financial threshold. The petitioners pleaded with the Court to set aside the rejection and direct the issuance of the EWS certificate to enable Meghna to secure her rightful admission to NIFT.
The respondents’ arguments, advanced by O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Amminikutty, Senior Government Pleader; and S. Nirmal, Standing Counsel for NIFT, defended the rejection order. They maintained that under the EWS criteria prescribed by both the Central and State Governments, the income of both parents has to be taken into account for determining eligibility, and that the landholding calculation indicated that the family exceeded the permissible limit. They argued that the rules were clear and uniform, and granting exceptions could lead to arbitrary classifications and misuse of EWS benefits. The respondents also highlighted that the school certificate was a primary document of identification and family relationship, and any anomaly in such a critical record could not be brushed aside casually. They expressed concern that if exceptions were carved out too liberally, it could open the floodgates for manipulation and false claims under the EWS category. However, while pressing their case, the respondents were unable to convincingly rebut the evidence produced by the petitioners regarding abandonment by the father, the accurate measurement of residential land, and the authenticity of the second petitioner’s maternity as supported by multiple government records.
Judgement:
The Kerala High Court’s judgment, delivered by Justice N. Nagaresh, carefully analyzed the facts, evidence, and applicable legal framework. The Court began by acknowledging that under normal circumstances, the income of both father and mother would be considered for the purpose of granting an EWS certificate. However, it emphasized that if one parent had abandoned the family, as evidenced in this case, it would be wholly unreasonable to take into account that parent’s income. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Panchayat President’s certificate clearly established that the second petitioner had been deserted by her husband for over 12 years, that he was living abroad with another family, and that she had not remarried. In such circumstances, the Court ruled, the father’s income was irrelevant for determining the petitioner’s eligibility under EWS. This principle, the Court noted, was in line with both equity and the underlying purpose of the EWS category, which seeks to provide educational opportunities to deserving candidates from economically weaker backgrounds.
On the issue of landholding, the Court examined G.O.(MS) No. 23/2024/P&ARD dated 27.11.2024 and held that the petitioners’ interpretation was correct. It clarified that if a residence is located on an agricultural plot, only the built-up portion and its immediate surroundings are to be treated as residential land, while the rest is considered agricultural. Since the licensed building supervisor’s report showed that the family’s residential area was only 3.5 cents, they fell within the permissible EWS limit of 4.13 cents. Therefore, the Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the family exceeded the landholding ceiling.
On the anomaly in the Secondary School Certificate, the Court held that the presence of the stepmother’s name in the “mother’s name” column was not sufficient to deny an EWS certificate, especially when the Village Officer’s certificate confirmed that the second petitioner was the biological mother. Justice N. Nagaresh stressed that technical or clerical discrepancies should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights, particularly in cases involving educational opportunities.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order rejecting the EWS certificate, and directed the Tahsildar (the third respondent) to issue the EWS certificate to the petitioner. Further, it directed the Director General of NIFT to consider granting admission to Meghna Devi in case of a vacancy and upon fulfillment of all other eligibility conditions. The Court’s ruling not only brought relief to the petitioner but also set an important precedent on the interpretation of EWS rules, particularly regarding the treatment of income of an abandoning parent and the categorization of landholdings.
This judgment is significant as it underscores the principle that EWS benefits are to be granted on the basis of actual economic condition of the family in practice, not on technicalities that unfairly penalize applicants. By holding that the income of an abandoning parent cannot be considered, the Court has ensured that children of broken families are not unfairly deprived of opportunities. It also clarified that anomalies in documents must be viewed in light of corroborative evidence, and genuine applicants should not be denied their rightful entitlements due to clerical errors. Moreover, the Court harmonized the rules relating to landholding with ground realities by recognizing the distinction between residential and agricultural portions of a plot. The judgment thus reflects a balance between strict adherence to rules and compassionate application of law to ensure justice.