Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal regarding entitlement to Scheduled Caste community certificate by a person actively practicing Christianity but claiming to be a Hindu; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., strictly observed that if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation.
The Court further explained that in the instant case, the appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any caste. As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. There was nothing on record to show that appellant or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary; however, there was a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity. Therefore, the contention raised on the side of the appellant that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, is unsustainable in the facts of the case.
Background:
The appellant was born in 1990 to a Christian, and her birth was duly registered with Pondicherry Municipality. The appellant claimed that her father, grandparents and great grandparents professed the Hindu religion and belonged to Valluvan Caste, which is recognised as one of the Scheduled Castes under Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 (S.C. Order, 1964). It was claimed that the appellant’s mother was a Christian by birth and after marriage she got converted to Hindu religion and started to profess the same. Thus, according to the appellant, she is a Hindu by religion and belongs to Valluvan Caste; and she claimed to have successfully completed her school education and graduation by availing concessions under the Hindu Adi Dravida quota.
In 2015, the appellant applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk and after written examination, she was selected, and her name was listed under the Scheduled Caste category. In the course of certificate verification, though the appellant possessed the required certificates, the respondent authorities insisted her to produce the original latest community, residence and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar, which would satisfy the requirement of being a resident in Puducherry for a continuous period of 5 years prior to the date of application.
Pursuant thereto, the appellant made an application seeking a community certificate as if she belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. However, her application was rejected on the ground that she does not profess Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism and therefore, the community certificate under the S.C. Order, 1964, could not be issued to her. The appeal preferred against the said order came to be rejected as well. The appellant approached Madras High Court, wherein Court directed the respondents to conduct enquiry on the appellant’s application and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law. The appellant’s claim was rejected again. In the meanwhile, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order cancelling her selection to the post of UDC and obtained an interim order that one post of UDC shall be kept vacant by the respondents.
Considering the afore-stated facts and circumstances, Madras High Court via impugned order dismissed the appellant’s petition leading to the instant appeal.
Counsel for the appellant argued that right from birth, the appellant had affinity in professing Hinduism and has been going to Hindu temples and offering worship to Hindu deities. Through various documents, the appellant was able to prove that she was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, who also, after marriage, started to profess the Hindu religion; her grandparents and great grandparents belonged to Valluvan caste. Furthermore, throughout her educational career, the appellant was treated as belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.
The appellant further argued that caste is assigned inherently at birth and does not cease to operate upon conversion of religion. Rather, it is eclipsed and can be regained upon reconversion, provided the caste / community is accepting the reconverted individual.
Court’s Assessment
Perusing the matter, the Court noted the legal position connected with the instant case in Article of the and pointed out that only such castes which have been mentioned in the Schedule appended to the S.C. Order, 1964, shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes with respect to the Union Territory of Pondicherry; and that, a person, who is professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, shall be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Court further mentioned that the converts to Christianity from Scheduled Caste irrespective of generation of conversion would fall under the OBC category as per G.O. Ms. No. 9/2001-Wel (SW-II), dated 19-02-2001 of the Government of Puducherry and the Central List of OBC’s for Puducherry vide No.12011/14/2004-BCC dated 12-03-2007.
Affirming the ruling by Kerala High Court in Sapna Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 233, wherein the High Court held that Court cannot test or gauge the sincerity of religious belief, but, a Court can find the true intention of men lying behind their acts and can certainly find from the circumstances of a case whether a pretended conversion was really a means to some further end; the Supreme Court then proceeded to determine the issue in the instant case in the backdrop of facts and documentary evidence.
The Court noted that the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence collected, would clearly establish that the appellant’s father belonged to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant’s mother was a Christian and their marriage was performed as per the Christian rituals and duly registered by the parish of Lourdes Shine, Villianur and thereafter, the appellant’s father had converted to Christianity through baptism; baptism of the appellant’s brother was done in 1989; and the appellant, who was born in 1990, was baptized in 1991 at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Pondicherry within two months. Therefore, it was clear that the appellant was a born Christian, and she would not be entitled to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste Category.
The Court further said that when the facts are otherwise, the appellant cannot simply claim that her father got reconverted and she and her mother converted. The appellant and her family, if they really intended to get themselves converted, ought to have done some positive act to evince such conversion rather than a meek claim to be practicing Hinduism. One of the methods of conversion is by adopting a procedure prescribed through the Arya Samaj. A public declaration to the effect of evincing conversion could also have been made. The Court pointed out that there is no documentary evidence to that effect and the oral evidence sought to be relied upon by the appellant is also against her.
The Court pointed out that the certified copies of the baptism, extract from the register of marriage of the appellant’s parents at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur gathered by the Village Administrative Officer, further disclosed that the appellant’s father is a converted Christian, and the appellant was baptized after her birth. Thus, it could be safely inferred that the appellant is a Christian by religion, and she does not profess Hinduism. Therefore, in terms of the S.C. Order, 1964, as per which, the Scheduled Caste community certificate can be issued only to a person who is professing either Hinduism Sikhism or Buddhism, the appellant is not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate.
Furthermore, the Court took note that it was not clear how the appellant was issued with a Scheduled caste community certificate earlier. “It is settled law that an illegality cannot be perpetuated”.
The Court explained that the field verification clearly revealed the registration of the marriage of the parents of the appellant under the , the baptism of the appellant and her brother and the fact that they had been regularly attending church. Any interference with such findings of fact is unwarranted unless the findings are perverse. Therefore, the Court opined that the respondent authorities, after a thorough enquiry and having analysed the documentary evidence, reached the right conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate. The High Court also, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position, was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The Court further observed that India is a secular country and every citizen has a right to practice and profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under Article of the . One converts to a different religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts; however, conversion for the sole reason of deriving benefit of reservation cannot be permitted. The Court pointed out that in the instant case, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the appellant actively practices Christianity by attending church regularly. Despite this, the appellant claimed to be a Hindu and sought for Scheduled Caste certificate for the purpose of employment. Such a dual claim is untenable and the appellant cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism. “Therefore, the conferment of Scheduled caste communal status to the appellant, who is a Christian by religion, but claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution”.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Appellants : C. Selvarani Respondents : Special Secretary-cum-District Collector | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Ms. N. S. Nappinai, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Asaithambi MSM, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nizamuddin, Adv. Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s): Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Akshay Gupta, Adv. |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .