By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Charles Haynes, religious freedom scholar, rightly said: “Religious freedom as a legal right means little unless people of all religions are safe to practice their faith, wear their religious garb, speak their truth and in other ways follow their conscience without fear of discrimination, persecution or violence.” But what happens when the same people try to don a different religious garb when it suits their purpose?
The Supreme Court, in its latest ruling, has held: “Religious conversion merely to avail quota benefits without ‘actual belief’ in the other religion would defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation”. The Court through this judgment upheld a Madras High Court order denying Scheduled Caste certificate to a Christian-born woman who claimed to be a Hindu while seeking the certificate for an upper division clerk job in Puducherry.
The matter was taken up by a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan who also said: “In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity and actively practises the faith by attending church regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate for the purpose of employment. Such a dual claim made by her is untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism.” The bench then went on to say: “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.”
There are also other pleas pending before the Supreme Court that deal with the larger question on the constitutionality of using religion as a yardstick for Scheduled Caste quota. These pleas primarily seek reservation for Dalits who got converted to Christianity and Islam. The 1950 Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order issued by the then president mandated Scheduled Caste status only for Hindus, thereby excluding people from other religions from seeking benefits under the same. It would be important to note here that Sikhs and Buddhists are also considered as Hindus for the purpose of reservations. In 2007, Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission report on religious and linguistic minorities had recommended Scheduled Caste quota for Dalit Christians and Muslims.
In this case, the appellant, C Selvarani, had challenged the order of the Madras High Court, which dismissed her writ petition. She contended that she professes the Hindu religion and belongs to Valluvan caste, which falls within the ambit of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, and hence, she is entitled to get concession under the Adi Dravida quota. Selvarani further argued that right from birth, she has affinity in professing Hinduism and has been going to temples and worshipping Hindu deities.
Selvarani also submitted that through various documents, she had been 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; that her grandparents and great grandparents belonged to Valluvan caste. She further claimed that throughout her educational career, she was treated as belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and the transfer certificates also affirmed her communal status as such and that her father and her brother possessed Scheduled Caste certificates.
Taking note of all these submissions and the evidence on record, the bench said:
“The report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence collected” clearly establish that her father belonged to Scheduled Caste community and mother was a Christian and their marriage was performed as per the Christian rituals. It said that “thereafter, the appellant’s father had converted to Christianity through baptism; baptism of the appellant’s brother was done on 07.05.1989; and the appellant was born on 22.11.1990 and she was baptized on 06.01.1991 at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Pondicherry within two months”. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for a SC community certificate for the purpose of employment”, the bench noted. “Such a dual claim made by her was untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism,” it observed.
“Therefore, it is clear that the appellant was a born Christian and she would not be entitled to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste category,” the bench said and added: “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 practising Hinduism”.
The bench also categorically observed that individuals once converting to Christianity lose their caste identity and must provide compelling evidence of reconversion and acceptance by their original caste to claim Scheduled Caste benefits, and in this case, there was no substantial evidence of the appellant’s reconversion to Hinduism or acceptance by the Valluvan caste.
In this case, the very fact of reconversion was disputed hence it was imperative that there exists more than a mere claim, as the conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through Arya Samaj and no public declaration was effected. “There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” the bench noted.
Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the 21-page verdict for the bench, also said: “India is a secular country. Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a different religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, 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 motives will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation.”
Legally speaking, in India, any person can convert his/her religion with good faith. Conversion of one religion to another religion, however, isn’t governed by any law. The Constitution also states that a person has the freedom to profess, practice and propagate any religion. As such, there is no legal procedure to convert the religion, but the conversion must be notified in the government gazette so that it can be easily affected in all other legal documents.
India’s freedom of religion acts, or “anti-conversion” laws as they are generally called, are state-level statutes that have been enacted to regulate religious conversions. These laws are in force in eight out of 29 states, namely Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. While these laws may vary to a small extent, they are very similar in their inherent content and structure.
All of the laws seek to prevent any person from converting or attempting to convert, either directly or otherwise, another person through “forcible” or “fraudulent” means, or by “allurement” or “inducement.” Various personal laws provide the specific rituals that need to be followed at the time of changing the religion. But to validate the conversion, it should be done without any fraud or any wrongful gain. It cannot be denied that religion often is misused for purely power and political goals, including war.
Conversion from one religion to another has both social and legal consequences, including right to succession, marital status of the person and also the right to seek elective office. Under the Hindu law, a person can even take the divorce on the ground that his/her spouse has converted into another religion.
Similarly, if a Muslim husband has repudiated Islam and converted into another religion, his marriage will be automatically considered as dissolved. If a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member has changed the religion and adopted another religion then it’s a fair chance that he may lose his right to contest in the elections which are reserved for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. Thus, the event of conversion is of high significance from the perspective of rights and disabilities of a convert.
At the core of religious freedom, however, is freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is a foundation for freedom of speech, freedom of protest [and] freedom of the press. It is without doubt that all freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution come with their own corresponding duties, hence any effort to partake the benefit of these rights with a mala fide intention, merely to take an undue benefit provided by the law will definitely not be condoned or overlooked.
The current ruling by the Supreme Court wherein the Court has frowned upon “religious conversion merely to avail quota benefits without ‘actual belief’ in the other religion” is significant. Holding that the same would “defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation” goes a long way in re-establishing that the benefit of any right cannot be availed without carrying and faithfully observing all the corresponding duties that accompany it.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post appeared first on .
Charles Haynes, religious freedom scholar, rightly said: “Religious freedom as a legal right means little unless people of all religions are safe to practice their faith, wear their religious garb, speak their truth and in other ways follow their conscience without fear of discrimination, persecution or violence.” But what happens when the same people try to don a different religious garb when it suits their purpose?
The Supreme Court, in its latest ruling, has held: “Religious conversion merely to avail quota benefits without ‘actual belief’ in the other religion would defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation”. The Court through this judgment upheld a Madras High Court order denying Scheduled Caste certificate to a Christian-born woman who claimed to be a Hindu while seeking the certificate for an upper division clerk job in Puducherry.
The matter was taken up by a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan who also said: “In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity and actively practises the faith by attending church regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate for the purpose of employment. Such a dual claim made by her is untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism.” The bench then went on to say: “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.”
There are also other pleas pending before the Supreme Court that deal with the larger question on the constitutionality of using religion as a yardstick for Scheduled Caste quota. These pleas primarily seek reservation for Dalits who got converted to Christianity and Islam. The 1950 Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order issued by the then president mandated Scheduled Caste status only for Hindus, thereby excluding people from other religions from seeking benefits under the same. It would be important to note here that Sikhs and Buddhists are also considered as Hindus for the purpose of reservations. In 2007, Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission report on religious and linguistic minorities had recommended Scheduled Caste quota for Dalit Christians and Muslims.
In this case, the appellant, C Selvarani, had challenged the order of the Madras High Court, which dismissed her writ petition. She contended that she professes the Hindu religion and belongs to Valluvan caste, which falls within the ambit of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, and hence, she is entitled to get concession under the Adi Dravida quota. Selvarani further argued that right from birth, she has affinity in professing Hinduism and has been going to temples and worshipping Hindu deities.
Selvarani also submitted that through various documents, she had been 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; that her grandparents and great grandparents belonged to Valluvan caste. She further claimed that throughout her educational career, she was treated as belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and the transfer certificates also affirmed her communal status as such and that her father and her brother possessed Scheduled Caste certificates.
Taking note of all these submissions and the evidence on record, the bench said:
“The report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence collected” clearly establish that her father belonged to Scheduled Caste community and mother was a Christian and their marriage was performed as per the Christian rituals. It said that “thereafter, the appellant’s father had converted to Christianity through baptism; baptism of the appellant’s brother was done on 07.05.1989; and the appellant was born on 22.11.1990 and she was baptized on 06.01.1991 at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Pondicherry within two months”. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for a SC community certificate for the purpose of employment”, the bench noted. “Such a dual claim made by her was untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism,” it observed.
“Therefore, it is clear that the appellant was a born Christian and she would not be entitled to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste category,” the bench said and added: “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 practising Hinduism”.
The bench also categorically observed that individuals once converting to Christianity lose their caste identity and must provide compelling evidence of reconversion and acceptance by their original caste to claim Scheduled Caste benefits, and in this case, there was no substantial evidence of the appellant’s reconversion to Hinduism or acceptance by the Valluvan caste.
In this case, the very fact of reconversion was disputed hence it was imperative that there exists more than a mere claim, as the conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through Arya Samaj and no public declaration was effected. “There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” the bench noted.
Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the 21-page verdict for the bench, also said: “India is a secular country. Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a different religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, 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 motives will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation.”
Legally speaking, in India, any person can convert his/her religion with good faith. Conversion of one religion to another religion, however, isn’t governed by any law. The Constitution also states that a person has the freedom to profess, practice and propagate any religion. As such, there is no legal procedure to convert the religion, but the conversion must be notified in the government gazette so that it can be easily affected in all other legal documents.
India’s freedom of religion acts, or “anti-conversion” laws as they are generally called, are state-level statutes that have been enacted to regulate religious conversions. These laws are in force in eight out of 29 states, namely Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. While these laws may vary to a small extent, they are very similar in their inherent content and structure.
All of the laws seek to prevent any person from converting or attempting to convert, either directly or otherwise, another person through “forcible” or “fraudulent” means, or by “allurement” or “inducement.” Various personal laws provide the specific rituals that need to be followed at the time of changing the religion. But to validate the conversion, it should be done without any fraud or any wrongful gain. It cannot be denied that religion often is misused for purely power and political goals, including war.
Conversion from one religion to another has both social and legal consequences, including right to succession, marital status of the person and also the right to seek elective office. Under the Hindu law, a person can even take the divorce on the ground that his/her spouse has converted into another religion.
Similarly, if a Muslim husband has repudiated Islam and converted into another religion, his marriage will be automatically considered as dissolved. If a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member has changed the religion and adopted another religion then it’s a fair chance that he may lose his right to contest in the elections which are reserved for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. Thus, the event of conversion is of high significance from the perspective of rights and disabilities of a convert.
At the core of religious freedom, however, is freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is a foundation for freedom of speech, freedom of protest [and] freedom of the press. It is without doubt that all freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution come with their own corresponding duties, hence any effort to partake the benefit of these rights with a mala fide intention, merely to take an undue benefit provided by the law will definitely not be condoned or overlooked.
The current ruling by the Supreme Court wherein the Court has frowned upon “religious conversion merely to avail quota benefits without ‘actual belief’ in the other religion” is significant. Holding that the same would “defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation” goes a long way in re-establishing that the benefit of any right cannot be availed without carrying and faithfully observing all the corresponding duties that accompany it.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post appeared first on .