Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 to 17 and 341 & Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Para 3. Persons belonging to Schedule Caste - Conversion to Christianity Disentitlement to benefit of constitutional provisions relating to Schedule Castes - Whether legal, valid and constitutional.= PETITIONER: SOOSAI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=9179

ACT:
     Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 to 17 and 341 &
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Para 3.
     Persons belonging to Schedule  Caste -  Conversion  to
Christianity Disentitlement  to  benefit  of  constitutional
provisions relating  to Schedule  Castes  -  Whether  legal,
valid and constitutional.



HEADNOTE:
     The Government  of  India set  up  a  special  Central
Assistance Scheme  for the  welfare  of  Scheduled  Castes.
Consequent to  a proposal  under this  Scheme, allotment  of
bunk free  of Cost were to be made to cobblers by profession
who worked on the roadside, by the State Government of Tamil
Nadu in  pursuance to G.O. No. 580 Social Welfare Department
dated February 13, 1982. This Order specifically stated that
persons belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes and converted to
Christianity were  not eligible  for  assistance  under  the
scheme.
     The petitioner,  who was  a Hindu belonging to the Adi-
Dravida caste and on conversion to Christianity continued as
a member  of that  caste,-contended in his writ petition to
this court  that he  had been  denied  the  benefit  of  the
welfare assistance  intended for  Scheduled  Castes  on  the
ground that  he professes  the Christian  religion, and that
such  discrimination  had  been  affected  pursuant  to  the
provision contained  in  paragraph  3  of  the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes)  Order, 1950  and that  the provision was
constitutionally invalid  as being  violative of Articles 14
to 17.
     In the  connected writ  petition,  relief  was  sought
against the  Circular letter dated August 16/25, 1983 issued
by the State Government  of Tamilnadu to the State Public
Service Commission stating that "Scheduled Caste" Christians
who revert to Hinduism and on that basis obtain appointments
to reserved  seats in Government services and having done so
change their religion once
243
again after  their entry into Government service were liable
to have their selection cancelled, as being constitutionally
invalid and violative of Articles 14 to 17.
     On the  question: whether the Constitution  (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950  is  constitutionally  invalid  on  the
ground that  only  Hindu  or  Sikh  members  of  the  castes
enumerated in  the Schedule  to that  Order are deemed to be
Scheduled Castes  for the  purpose of  the  Constitution  of
India.
     Dismissing the writ petitions,
^
     HELD: 1.  It is  not possible to say that the President
acted arbitrarily in the  exercise  of  his judgment  in
enacting paragraph  3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950. [250 F]
     2.Dr. J.H.  Hutton, a  Census  Commissioner  of  India,
framed a  list of  the depressed  classes and  that list was
made the  basis of  an order  promulgated  by the  British
Government  in  India called  the  Government   of  India
(Scheduled Castes)  Order, 1936. The Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950 was substantially modelled on the Order
of 1936.  The Order  of 1936 enumerated several castes races
or  tribes  in an  attached  schedule and  they  were,  by
paragraph 2  of the  Order, deemed  to be  Scheduled Castes.
Paragraph 3  of the  same Order  declared  that  the  Indian
Christians  would  not be  deemed  to be  members  of  the
Scheduled Castes. [249 C-D]
     3. The  President had  before him material  indicating
that the  depressed  classes  of  the  Hindu  and  the Sikh
Communities suffered  from economic  and social disabilities
and  cultural  and  educational  backwardness  so  gross  in
character and degree that the members of these Castes in the
two  communities   called  for  the   protection   of  the
Constitutional provisions  relating to the Scheduled Castes,
and that  in order  to provide for their  amelioration  and
advancement it was necessary to conceive of intervention by
the State through its legislative and executive powers. [249
H; 250 B]
     4.(i) In  discharge of the obligation imposed by clause
(1) of Article 341  the President  issued the Constitution
(Scheduled  Castes)  Order,  1950.  In its  original  form,
paragraph 3  declared that  (1) no  person who professes  a
religion different  from Hinduism  would be  deemed to be a
member of  a  Scheduled  Caste.  There  was  a  proviso  to
paragraph 3  which  declared  that  every    member  of  the
Ramdasi, Kabirpanthi, Mazhabi or Sikligar caste
244
resident in  Punjab or the Patiala  and East  Punjab States
Union would  in relation  to that  State be  deemed to be a
member of  the Scheduled  Castes whether  he  professed  the
Hindu  religion   or  the   Sikh   religion.   Subsequently,
Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Orders (Amendment)  Act,  1956 which  substituted  for  the
original paragraph 3 the present paragraph 3, which declared
:-
  "3. Notwithstanding    anything   contained   in
  paragraph 2,no  person who  professes  a  religion
  different from  the Hindu  or  the  Sikh  religion
  shall be  deemed to  be a  member of a  Scheduled
  Caste." [247 F; 248A]
     (ii)  For  the  purposes  of  the   Constitution  the
constitutional     provisions relating  to Scheduled Castes
are intended  to be  applied to  only those  members of  the
castes enumerated  in the  Constitution  (Scheduled  Castes)
Order, 1950 who profess the Hindu or the Sikh religion. If a
Christian belongs  to one  of those  castes, he is barred by
reason of  paragraph 3, from being regarded as a member of a
Scheduled Caste  and is,  therefore,  not  entitled  to  the
benefit  of   the  constitutional   provisions relating  to
Scheduled Castes. [248 B-Cl
     5. The  declaration incorporated  in paragraph  3 was a
declaration made  for the  purposes of the Constitution. It
was a  declaration enjoined  by clause (1) of Article 341 of
the Constitution.  To establish  that  paragraph  3  of  the
Constitution (Scheduled  Castes) Order,  1950  discriminates
against Christian  members of  the enumerated castes it must
be shown  that they suffer from a comparable depth of social
and  economic  disabilities  and  cultural  and  educational
backwardness and  similar levels  of degradation  within the
Christian community  necessitating intervention by the State
under provisions  of the  Constitution. It is not sufficient
to show  that the  same caste continues after conversion. It
is necessary  to establish further that the disabilities and
handicaps suffered  from such caste membership in the social
order of  its origin - Hinduism continue in their oppressive
severity in  the new  environment of  a different  religious
community. No  authoritative or  detailed study dealing with
the present conditions of Christian society have been placed
on the record in this case. [250 B-E]



PETITIONER:
SOOSAI ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/09/1985

BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S.
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S.
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:
 1986 AIR  733  1985 SCR  Supl. (3) 242
 1985 SCC  Supl.  590  1985 SCALE  (2)773


ACT:
     Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14 to 17 and 341 &
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, Para 3.
     Persons belonging to Schedule  Caste -  Conversion  to
Christianity Disentitlement  to benefit  of  constitutional
provisions relating  to Schedule  Castes  -  Whether  legal,
valid and constitutional.



HEADNOTE:
     The Government  of India set  up a  special  Central
Assistance Scheme  for the  welfare  of  Scheduled  Castes.
Consequent to  a proposal  under this  Scheme, allotment  of
bunk free  of Cost were to be made to cobblers by profession
who worked on the roadside, by the State Government of Tamil
Nadu in pursuance to G.O. No. 580 Social Welfare Department
dated February 13, 1982. This Order specifically stated that
persons belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes and converted to
Christianity were  not eligible for  assistance  under the
scheme.
     The petitioner,  who was  a Hindu belonging to the Adi-
Dravida caste and on conversion to Christianity continued as
a member  of that  caste,-contended in his writ petition to
this court  that he  had been  denied  the  benefit  of the
welfare assistance  intended for  Scheduled  Castes  on the
ground that  he professes  the Christian  religion, and that
such  discrimination  had  been affected  pursuant  to the
provision contained  in paragraph  3  of  the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes)  Order, 1950 and that  the provision was
constitutionally invalid  as being  violative of Articles 14
to 17.
     In the  connected writ  petition, relief was  sought
against the  Circular letter dated August 16/25, 1983 issued
by the State Government  of Tamilnadu to the State Public
Service Commission stating that "Scheduled Caste" Christians
who revert to Hinduism and on that basis obtain appointments
to reserved  seats in Government services and having done so
change their religion once
243
again after  their entry into Government service were liable
to have their selection cancelled, as being constitutionally
invalid and violative of Articles 14 to 17.
     On the  question: whether the Constitution  (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950  is  constitutionally  invalid  on the
ground that  only  Hindu  or  Sikh  members  of the  castes
enumerated in  the Schedule  to that  Order are deemed to be
Scheduled Castes  for the  purpose of  the  Constitution  of
India.
     Dismissing the writ petitions,
^
     HELD: 1.  It is  not possible to say that the President
acted arbitrarily in the  exercise  of  his judgment  in
enacting paragraph  3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950. [250 F]
     2.Dr. J.H. Hutton, a  Census  Commissioner  of  India,
framed a  list of  the depressed  classes and  that list was
made the  basis of  an order  promulgated  by the  British
Government  in India called the  Government   of  India
(Scheduled Castes)  Order, 1936. The Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950 was substantially modelled on the Order
of 1936.  The Order  of 1936 enumerated several castes races
or  tribes  in an  attached  schedule and  they  were,  by
paragraph 2  of the  Order, deemed  to be  Scheduled Castes.
Paragraph 3  of the  same Order declared  that the  Indian
Christians  would  not be  deemed  to be  members  of the
Scheduled Castes. [249 C-D]
     3. The  President had  before him material  indicating
that the  depressed  classes  of  the  Hindu  and  the Sikh
Communities suffered  from economic  and social disabilities
and  cultural  and  educational backwardness  so  gross  in
character and degree that the members of these Castes in the
two  communities   called  for the   protection   of the
Constitutional provisions  relating to the Scheduled Castes,
and that  in order  to provide for their  amelioration and
advancement it was necessary to conceive of intervention by
the State through its legislative and executive powers. [249
H; 250 B]
     4.(i) In  discharge of the obligation imposed by clause
(1) of Article 341  the President  issued the Constitution
(Scheduled  Castes)  Order,  1950.  In its  original  form,
paragraph 3  declared that  (1) no  person who professes  a
religion different  from Hinduism  would be  deemed to be a
member of  a  Scheduled  Caste.  There was  a proviso  to
paragraph 3  which  declared  that  every    member  of the
Ramdasi, Kabirpanthi, Mazhabi or Sikligar caste
244
resident in  Punjab or the Patiala  and East  Punjab States
Union would  in relation  to that  State be  deemed to be a
member of  the Scheduled  Castes whether  he  professed the
Hindu  religion  or  the   Sikh   religion.   Subsequently,
Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Orders (Amendment)  Act,  1956 which  substituted  for the
original paragraph 3 the present paragraph 3, which declared
:-
 "3. Notwithstanding   anything   contained  in
 paragraph 2,no  person who  professes a  religion
 different from  the Hindu  or the  Sikh  religion
 shall be  deemed to  be a  member of a  Scheduled
 Caste." [247 F; 248A]
     (ii)  For the  purposes of  the   Constitution the
constitutional    provisions relating to Scheduled Castes
are intended  to be  applied to only those  members of the
castes enumerated  in the  Constitution (Scheduled  Castes)
Order, 1950 who profess the Hindu or the Sikh religion. If a
Christian belongs  to one  of those  castes, he is barred by
reason of  paragraph 3, from being regarded as a member of a
Scheduled Caste and is,  therefore,  not  entitled  to the
benefit of   the  constitutional   provisions relating  to
Scheduled Castes. [248 B-Cl
     5. The  declaration incorporated  in paragraph  3 was a
declaration made  for the  purposes of the Constitution. It
was a  declaration enjoined  by clause (1) of Article 341 of
the Constitution.  To establish that  paragraph  3  of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950  discriminates
against Christian  members of  the enumerated castes it must
be shown  that they suffer from a comparable depth of social
and  economic  disabilities  and  cultural  and educational
backwardness and  similar levels  of degradation  within the
Christian community  necessitating intervention by the State
under provisions  of the  Constitution. It is not sufficient
to show that the  same caste continues after conversion. It
is necessary  to establish further that the disabilities and
handicaps suffered  from such caste membership in the social
order of  its origin - Hinduism continue in their oppressive
severity in  the new  environment of  a different  religious
community. No  authoritative or detailed study dealing with
the present conditions of Christian society have been placed
on the record in this case. [250 B-E]



JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ  Petition No.  9596 of  1983 &
1017 of 1984.
      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
245
     F.S. Nariman,  U.S. Prasad,  Jose Verghese, N.P. Midha,
V.A. A Bobde and L.R. Singh for the Petitioners.
     Govind Das,  M.M. Abdul Khadar, R. Thiyagarajan, Ms. A.
Subhashini and A.V. Rangam for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
     PATHAK, J. This and the connected writ petitions raise
the important  question whether the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950  is  constitutionally  invalid  on the
ground that  only  Hindu  or  Sikh  members  of the  castes
enumerated in  the Schedule  to that  Order are deemed to be
Scheduled Castes  for the  purposes of the Constitution  of
India.
     The petitioner  Soosai (in Writ Petition No. 9596  of
1983) states  that he  belongs to  the Adi-Dravida Community
and is a convert  to  Christianity.  He  is  a cobbler  by
profession and works on  the roadside at one of the cross-
roads in  Madras. In  May, 1982,  the officers of the Tamil
Nadu Khadi  and Village Industries Board surveyed the sites
on which cobblers were working, including the place occupied
by the petitioner, and subsequently on July 27, 1982 several
cobblers were  allotted bunks  free of cost by the Regional
Deputy Director,  Khadi and  Village Industries Board. The
petitioner was not. On enquiry the E petitioner came to know
that the allotment of bunks free of cost was consequent to a
proposal under the Special Central Assistance Scheme of the
Government of India for the welfare of Scheduled Castes. The
funds for the purpose were provided from the Special Central
Assistance of  the Government  of India set up for  giving
effect to  schemes exclusively intended for Scheduled Castes
under  G.O.Ms. No.  580  Social  Welfare  Department  dated
February 13,  1982.  It is  pointed  out  that this  Order
specifically states  that persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and  converted to  Christianity are  not eligible for
assistance under  the scheme. The petitioner points out that
the  said  Order  has  been  made  in  consonance  with the
Constitution   (Scheduled   Castes)   Order,   1950,   which
specifically  declares that  no  person  who professes  a
religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall
be  deemed  to be  a  member  of  a  Scheduled Caste. The
petitioner assails  the validity of that Order on the ground
that it violates Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.
     The essence  of the  petitioner's case is that he was a
Hindu belonging to the Adi-Dravida caste and on conversion
to Christianity he continues as a member of that caste. The
246
Adi-Dravida caste  is one  of the  castes enumerated  in the
Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
The petitioner alleges that  he has been denied the benefit
of welfare  assistance intended for Scheduled Castes on the
ground only that he professes the Christian religion, and he
contends that  inasmuch as  such  discrimination  has been
effected pursuant  to the provision contained in paragraph 3
of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, that
provision  is constitutionally  invalid.   The  petitioner
invokes Article 14, which  is the  central provision in the
Constitution guaranteeing  the right  to equality before the
law and the equal protection of the laws, and clause (1) of
Article 15,  which prohibits  the State from discriminating
against any  citizen on the ground  only, among  others, of
religion. It is
 pointed  out that when clause (4) of Article 15 permits the
State, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in clause
(1)  of Article  15  to  make special provision  for the
advancement of socially and  educationally backward classes
of citizens  and for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled
Tribes, it   envisages such special provision  for the
advancement of all members  of such  backward classes  of
citizens, Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled  Tribes.  If any
discrimination is   exercised between the  members  of  a
Scheduled Caste on the ground of  religion only  so as  to
promote the  welfare of one group of members and deny it to
the others  the denial will be invalid. Reference has also
been made to  Article
 25  on the  ground that a Christian convert will be tempted
to re-convert  to Hinduism  or Sikhism in order  to benefit
from the  constitutional provisions  relating  to  Scheduled
Castes and therefore paragraph 3 in its operation denies him
freedom of  conscience and  the right freely to  profess,
practice and propagate his religion.
     The framers  of the  Constitution have taken great care
to ensure that sufficient provision is made for ameliorating
the conditions of certain  backward classes  found in India
who suffer from social and economic disabilities. Article 46
enjoins upon  the State,  as a Directive Principle of State
policy, to  promote with  special care the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and
in particular  of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
and to protect them  from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation. In consonance with this objective they enacted
a number  of provisions in the Constitution, of which clause
(4) of Article 15  is one.  Besides, although clause (1) of
Article 16   guarantees  equality  of opportunity  to all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to
any office under the State, there is clause (4) of
247
Article 16 which lays down that nothing in Article 16 will A
prevent the   State  from  making  any provision  for the
reservation of appointments  or  posts in  favour  of any
backward class of citizens  which, in the opinion  of the
State, is  not adequately  represented in the services under
the State. Article 17 abolishes "Untouchability" and forbids
its practice  in any form, and declares that the enforcement
of any disability arising out Of "Untouchability" will be an
offence punishable  in accordance  with law. There are other
provisions, such  as Article  330  which  provides  for the
reservation  of seats in  the House of  the People for
Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes and Article 332 which
makes similar  provision for  the reservation  of seats for
them in the State  Legislative Assemblies  We are concerned
here with  the advantages  and benefits  envisaged  by the
Constitution in respect of members of the Scheduled Castes.
     The expression Scheduled Castes is defined in clause 24
of Article 366 to mean such castes, races or tribes or parts
of or  groups within  such castes,  races or  tribes as are
deemed under  Article 341  to be  Scheduled Castes  for the
purpose of  this Constitution  . Clause (1) of Article 341
enjoins upon the President to specify by public notification
the castes,  races or  tribes or  parts of  or groups within
castes, races  or tribes,  which for  the  purposes  of the
Constitution are  deemed to  be Scheduled Castes in relation
to a  State or Union territory.  Once such  notification is
issued by   the  President  it cannot be  varied  by any
subsequent notification except that, by virtue of clause (2)
of Article  341, Parliament may by law include in or exclude
from  the   list  of   Scheduled  Castes  specified  in the
notification issued  under clause  (1) any  caste,  race  or
tribe or  part of or group within  any caste, race or tribe.
In discharge  of the  obligation imposed  by clause  (1)  of
Article 341 the President issued the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950. In  its  original form, paragraph  3
declared  that ....no person who  professes a  religion
different from Hinduism- would be deemed to be 2 member of z
Scheduled Caste.  There was  a proviso to paragraph 3 which
declared that  every member  of the  Ramdasi, Kabirpanthi,
Mazhabi or  Sikligar caste resident in Punjab or the Patiala
and East Punjab States Union would in relation to that State
be deemed  to be  member of the Scheduled Castes whether the
professed  the Hindu religion   or  the   Sikh  religion.
Subsequently Parliament enacted the  Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled  tribes   orders  (Amendment)  Act, 1956   which
substituted  for  the  original paragraph  3  that  present
paragraph, which declares:-
248
 "3. Notwithstanding   anything   contained  in
 paragraph 2, no person  who professes  a religion
 different from  the Hindu  or the  Sikh  religion
 shall be  deemed to  be a  member of a  Scheduled
 Caste.
It is  apparent that for the purpose of the Constitution the
constitutional provisions  relating to Scheduled Castes are
intended to  be applied to only those members of the castes
enumerated in  the Constitution (Scheduled  Castes)  Order,
1950 who profess the Hindu or the Sikh religion. Clearly, if
it can be contemplated that a Christian belongs to one of
those castes,  he is  barred by reason of paragraph 3, from
being regarded as a  member of a Scheduled  Caste and is,
therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the constitutional
provisions relating to Scheduled Castes.
     The main  question debated before us is whether a Hindu
belonging  to a  Scheduled  Caste  retains  his  caste  on
conversion to  Christianity. Cases decided by this Court and
by the High Courts  bearing on the point have been cited on
both sides  of the  line, and our attention has been invited
to text books, commentaries and Commission Reports, some of
which contain  the observation that  depressed groups and
castes are  to be  found not only among Hindus and Sikhs but
also  among   Muslims  and  Christians. It  appears  to  us
unnecessary in this case to enter upon that question and to
decide whether a Hindu belonging to  the Adi-Dravida caste
continues to  be a member of that caste on his conversion to
the Christian religion. We shall assume, for the purposes of
this case, that the caste is retained on conversion from one
religion to  the. Other. The real question is whether on the
material before us it can be said that  in confining the
declaration to members of the Hindus and the Sikh religions,
paragraph 3  of the  Constitution (Scheduled  Castes) Order,
1950  discriminates   against  members of  the   Christian
religion.
     Now it  cannot be disputed that  the caste system is a
feature of  the Hindu  social  structure.  It  is  a  social
phenomenon peculiar  to Hindu  society. The  division of the
Hindu social  order by reference at one time to professional
or vocational  occupation  was moulded into  a  structural
hierarchy which over  the  centuries  crystallized  into  a
stratification where the  place  of the  individual was
determined by  birth. Those  who occupied the lowest rung of
the social  ladder  were  treated  as  existing beyond the
periphery of  civilised society,  and were  indeed not even
"touchable". This social attitude committed those castes to
249
severe social  and economic  disabilities and cultural and A
educational backwardness. And through most of Indian history
the oppressive nature of  the caste structure has denied to
those  disadvantaged   castes  the   fundamentals  of  human
dignity, human self respect and even some of the attributes
of the human  personality.  Both  history  and latter day
practice in  Hindu society  are heavy  with evidence of this
oppressive tyranny,  and B  despite the efforts of  several
noted  social  reformers,  specially  during  the  last two
centuries, there has been a crying need for the emancipation
of the depressed classes  from the  degrading conditions of
their social  and economic  servitude. Dr.  J.H.  Hutton,  a
Census Commissioner of India, framed a list of the depressed
classes systematically, and that list was made the basis of
an order  promulgated by  the British  Government  in  India
called the  Government of  India (Scheduled  Castes)  Order,
1936. The  Constitution (Scheduled  Castes) Order,  1950  is
substantially modelled on the Order of  1936. The Order of
1936 enumerated several  castes,  races  or  tribes  in  an
attached Schedule  and they  were, by  paragraph  2  of the
Order, deemed  to be  Scheduled Castes. Paragraph 3  of the
same order  declared that the Indian Christians would not be
deemed to  be members  of the  Scheduled Castes.  During the
framing of   the  Constitution,  the  Constituent  Assembly
recognised that the Scheduled Castes were a backward section
of the Hindu community who were handicapped by the practice
of  untouchability   , and   that  this  evil practice  of
untouchability was  not recognised by any other religion and
the question  of any Scheduled Caste belonging to a religion
other than  Hinduism did  not therefore arise B. Shiva Rao:
The Framing  of India's Constitution: A  Study p. 771). The
Sikhs  however,  demanded  that   some of  their  backward
sections,  the Mazhabis,   Ramdasias,  Kabirpanthis and
Sikligars, should  be included in  the list  of  Scheduled
Castes. The  demand was accepted on  the basis that  these
sects were  originally Scheduled  Caste Hindus who had only
recently been  converted to the Sikh faith and "had the same
disabilities as the Hindu  Scheduled Castes (Supra p. 771).
The depressed  classes within  the fold of Hindu society and
the four  classes of  the Sikh community were therefore made
the subject  of the original Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950. Subsequently  in   1956  the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes  ) Order,  1950 was  amended and  it was
broadened to include all Sikh untouchables.
     It is  quite evident  that the President had before him
all this  material indicating  that the depressed classes of
the Hindu  and the  Sikh communities  suffered from economic
and social H
250
disabilities and  cultural and educational backwardness  so
gross A in character  and degree  that the members of those
castes in  the two  communities called for the protection of
the Constitutional  provisions relating  to  the  Scheduled
Castes. It  was evident that in  order to provide for their
amelioration and advancement it was necessary to conceive of
intervention  by  the  State  through  its  legislative and
executive powers. It must be remembered that the declaration
incorporated in paragraph 3  deeming them  to be members of
the Scheduled Castes was a declaration made for the purposes
of the Constitution. It was a declaration enjoined by clause
(1) of Article 341  of the  Constitution. To establish that
paragraph 3  of the  Constitution (Scheduled  Castes) Order,
1950  discriminates   against  Christian   members  of the
enumerated castes  it must  be shown that they suffer from a
comparable depth  of social  and economic  disabilities and
cultural and  educational backwardness and similar levels of
degradation within  the Christian  community  necessitating
intervention by the  State  under  the provisions  of the
Constitution. It  is not  sufficient to show that  the same
caste  continues   after  conversion.  It  is  necessary  to
establish  further   that  the disabilities  and  handicaps
suffered from  such caste  membership in the social order of
its origin  Hinduism - continue in their oppressive severity
in the new environment of a different religions community.
References have been made  in the material before us in the
most cursory  manner to the character and incidents of the
castes within  the Christian  fold, but no authoritative and
detailed  study dealing  with the  present  conditions  of
Christian society  have been  placed on the record  in this
case. It  is,  therefore,  not possible  to  say  that the
president acted arbitrarily in the exercise of his judgment
in enacting  paragraph 3  of  the  Constitution  (Scheduled
Castes) order, 1950. It is now well established that when a
violation of  Article 14 or any of its related provisions is
alleged, the  burden rests on the petitioner to establish by
clear and congent evidence that the State has been guilty of
arbitrary discrimination.  Having regard to the State of the
record before  us, we are unable to hold that the petitioner
has established his case.  The challenge  must,  therefore,
fail.
     In the  connected writ  petition No.  1017 of  1984 the
submissions  have   proceeded  substantially   on  the same
grounds, and  relief has  been sought additionally against a
Circular Letter No. 21711/ADWII/80-26 dated August  16/25,
1983 issued  by the  Government of  Tamil Nadu to the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission stating that "Scheduled Caste
Christians who revert to  Hinduism and on that basis obtain
appointments to reserved
251
seats in  Government services, and having  done  80  change
their religion once again after their entry into Government
service are liable to have their selection cancelled. On the
considerations which  have prevailed  with us  in dismissing
the earlier  writ petition,  this writ petition must also be
dismissed.
     The writ  petitions are dismissed but without any order
as to costs.
N.V.K. Petitions dismissed.
252

ACT: Hindu Law-Hindu embracing another religion-whether retains original cast. On reconversion to Hinduism-Whether performance of any particular ceremony or expiatory rites necessary. Representation of the people Act.-Parliamentary election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether a Hindu Adi Dravida (scheduled cast) on reconversion to Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes. HEADNOTE: The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on the ground that he was not a member of the Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first respondent belonged to the Scheduled Caste and upheld the election. Hence this appeal. The appellant urged that the parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown to be Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on conversion to Hinduism. Dismissing the appeal. ^ HELD: At all relevant time, the first respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than Hinduism. The precedents particularly those from South India, clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed for reconversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier embraced another religion. Unless the practice of the Caste makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and, ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does not accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he never lost his caste in the first instance when he embraced another religion. The practice of caste however irrational it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may appear to our moral and social sense, is so deeprooted in the Indian people that its mark does not seem to disappear on conversion to a different religion. If it disappears, it disappears only to re 974 appear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not seem to really disappear even after some generations after conversion. [981A-C] Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari & Ors. ILR 9 MADRAS 466, Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani & Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth, AIR 1937 MAD 172, Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami, ILR 1940 MAD 653, Rajgopal v. Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR 254, Rajgopal v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v; Ponnuswami [1971] I SCR 49, Vermani v. Vermani AIR 1943 LAHORE 51 and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.= PETITIONER: S. ANBALAGAN Vs. RESPONDENT: B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.= published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=9653

ACT:
     Hindu  Law-Hindu embracing  another  religion-whether
retains original  cast. On  reconversion to Hinduism-Whether
performance of any particular ceremony or  expiatory rites
necessary.
     Representation   of   the  people   Act.-Parliamentary
election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether
a Hindu  Adi Dravida  (scheduled cast) on  reconversion  to
Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes.



HEADNOTE:
     The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from
a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
The  appellant  challenged  the   election  of   the  first
respondent on  the ground  that he  was not  a member of the
Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first
respondent belonged  to the  Scheduled Caste  and upheld the
election. Hence  this appeal.  The appellant  urged that the
parents and  the sisters  of the respondent were shown to be
Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there
was no way he could acquire  a caste and  become  an  Adi
Dravida on conversion to Hinduism.
     Dismissing the appeal.
^
     HELD: At  all relevant time, the first respondent was a
Hindu Adi  Dravida and professed  no  religion  other than
Hinduism.
     The precedents  particularly those  from  South  India,
clearly establish  that no particular ceremony is prescribed
for reconversion  to Hinduism  of a  person who  had earlier
embraced another  religion. Unless the practice of the Caste
makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and,
ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does
not accept  him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that
he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he
never lost  his caste in the first instance when he embraced
another religion.  The practice  of caste however irrational
it may appear to  our reason  and however  repugnant it may
appear to  our moral  and social  sense, is so deeprooted in
the Indian  people that  its mark does not seem to disappear
on conversion  to a different religion. If it disappears, it
disappears only to re
974
appear on  reconversion. The  mark of caste does not seem to
really disappear   even  after   some  generations   after
conversion. [981A-C]
     Administrator-General of  Madras v.  Anandachari & Ors.
ILR 9  MADRAS 466,  Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani &
Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67
MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth,
AIR 1937  MAD 172,  Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami,
ILR 1940  MAD 653,  Rajgopal v.  Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR
254, Rajgopal  v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v;
Ponnuswami [1971]  I SCR  49, Vermani  v. Vermani  AIR 1943
LAHORE 51  and Chatturbhuj  Vithaldas  Jasani  v.  Moreshwer
Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.









PETITIONER:
S. ANBALAGAN

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1983

BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:
 1984 AIR  411  1984 SCR  (1) 973
 1984 SCC  (2) 112  1983 SCALE  (2)849
 CITATOR INFO :
 F    1984 SC 600 (19)
 R    1984 SC1260 (15)


ACT:
     Hindu  Law-Hindu embracing  another  religion-whether
retains original  cast. On  reconversion to Hinduism-Whether
performance of any particular ceremony or  expiatory rites
necessary.
     Representation   of   the people  Act.-Parliamentary
election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether
a Hindu Adi Dravida  (scheduled cast) on  reconversion  to
Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes.



HEADNOTE:
     The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from
a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
The  appellant challenged  the   election  of  the  first
respondent on  the ground  that he  was not  a member of the
Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first
respondent belonged  to the  Scheduled Caste  and upheld the
election. Hence this appeal.  The appellant  urged that the
parents and  the sisters  of the respondent were shown to be
Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there
was no way he could acquire  a caste and  become  an Adi
Dravida on conversion to Hinduism.
     Dismissing the appeal.
^
     HELD: At  all relevant time, the first respondent was a
Hindu Adi  Dravida and professed  no  religion other than
Hinduism.
     The precedents  particularly those from  South  India,
clearly establish  that no particular ceremony is prescribed
for reconversion  to Hinduism  of a  person who had earlier
embraced another  religion. Unless the practice of the Caste
makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and,
ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does
not accept  him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that
he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he
never lost  his caste in the first instance when he embraced
another religion.  The practice of caste however irrational
it may appear to  our reason  and however  repugnant it may
appear to  our moral  and social  sense, is so deeprooted in
the Indian  people that its mark does not seem to disappear
on conversion  to a different religion. If it disappears, it
disappears only to re
974
appear on  reconversion. The  mark of caste does not seem to
really disappear   even  after  some generations   after
conversion. [981A-C]
     Administrator-General of  Madras v.  Anandachari & Ors.
ILR 9  MADRAS 466,  Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani &
Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67
MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth,
AIR 1937  MAD 172,  Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami,
ILR 1940  MAD 653,  Rajgopal v. Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR
254, Rajgopal  v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v;
Ponnuswami [1971]  I SCR  49, Vermani  v. Vermani  AIR 1943
LAHORE 51  and Chatturbhuj  Vithaldas  Jasani  v.  Moreshwer
Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.
     In the  instant case  the birth  extract of  the  first
respondent shows  his parents as Hindu Adi Dravidas. Through
out his educational career,  he  was  treated as  a  Hindu
student belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes  and was awarded
scholarships on that basis.  The school records relating to
his children  also show them as Hindu Adi Dravidas. He never
attended a  church. On the other  hand there  is acceptable
evidence to  show that he was offering  worship  to  Hindu
deities in Hindu temples and that his marriage was performed
according to  Hindu custom and rites. Even assuming that the
parents and  sisters of the  first  respondent had  become
Christians and that the  first respondent  himself had been
baptised  when he  was  seven months old,  there  is  no
difficulty in holding, on the evidence in the case, that the
first respondent  had long since reverted to Hinduism and to
the Adi Dravida Caste. There is  not a scrap of acceptable
evidence to  show that he ever professed Christianity after
he came of age, On the other hand, every bit of evidence in
the case  shows that  from  his childhood,  he was  always
practising Hinduism and was treated by everyone concerned as
an Adi Dravida. There is then the outstanding circumstance
that  the  voters  of  the  Constituency  reserved  for the
Scheduled Castes  accepted his candidature for the reserved
seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. [891H; 892A-E]



JUDGMENT:
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 544 of
1981.
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated 23rd December, 1980
of the Madras High Court at Madras in Election Petition No.
1 of 1980.
     Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.N. Ramalngam and A.T.M. Sampath for
the Appellant.
     M.C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and K.S. Chowdhary
for the Respondents.
     A.V. Rangam for the Respondent No. 7.
975
     The Judgment  of the  Court was  delivered by CHINNAPPA
REDDY, J. 3, 26, 112 adult men and women voters of Rasipuram
Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes
accepted  the candidature  of the  first  Respondent,  B.
Devarajan for  the reserved  seat, apparently considered him
as a  member of the Scheduled Castes, voted  for  him and
elected him  to the  Lok Sabha, by a convincing majority of
nearly sixty  thousand votes at the election held in January
1980. And,  it was  not the  first time.  He was  in fact  a
sitting member of the Lok Sabha having been elected from the
same reserved  constituency at the previous general election
also, But  the verdict of the people was not sufficient for
the appellant, S. Anbalagan,  who secured 1,76,240 votes in
the January  1980 poll and lost the election. He wanted the
verdict of  an Election Tribunal on the question whether the
respondent  was a  Charistian and  not  a  member  of the
Scheduled Castes, as claimed by him. So he filed an election
petition  questioning  the  election  on  that ground. The
Election Tribunal  on  an  eleborate  consideration  of the
evidence held  that the appellant belonged to the Scheduled
Castes and,  on that finding, upheld the election. Anbalagan
has preferred this appeal.
     Dr.  Chitale,   learned  counsel for  the  appellant,
canvassed the  finding of  the Election Tribunal  that the
respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and, therefore, a member
of the Scheduled Castes. He argued that the parents and the
sisters of  the respondent  were shown to be Christians and
the respondent though obviously  a  Christian himself was
pretending to  be, a  member of the Scheduled Castes for the
purpose of gaining some advantages. He invited our attention
to the Baptismal certificate and certain other documents and
urged that the Respondent was born a Christian and there was
no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on
conversion to Hinduism.
     In order to properly appreciate the questions involved,
it is  necessary first to understand  the legal position in
regard to  caste status on conversion or  reconversion  to
Hinduism.
     In Administrator-General  of Madras  v.  Anandachari  &
Others(1), a  learned single  Judge of the Madras High Court
held that  the conversion of a Hindu Brahmin to Christianity
rendered him,  according to  Hindu Law, an  out  caste and
degraded. It was also observed that the degradation might be
atoned for  and the  convert readmitted to his status as a
Brahmin, if he at any time during his
976
life renounced Christianity  and  performed  the  rites  of
expiation enjoined by his caste.
     In Muthusami  Mudaliar & Anr. v. Masilamani & Others(1)
Shankaran Nair, J.  explained at  length  the process  of
formation of  castes and  also pointed out how simple the
matter of  reconversion to Hinduism was when a Hindu changed
his religion and later reverted back to Hinduism.
     In Gurusami  Nadar v. Irulappa Konar(2), Varadachariar,
J. explained  the observations made  in  certain  cases  by
Ananta Krishna Iyer, J.  about the  necessity of  expiatory
ceremonies for reconversion to Hinduism and pointed out that
in those  cases,  the  alleged reconversion  was  into the
Brahmin community  of Hindus  and it was possible to suggest
that certain  vedic rites  would have  been adopted  in such
cases. Expiatory  ceremonies, it  was further  pointed out,
would be necessary if such was the practice of the community
and not otherwise. One had, therefore, only to look to the
sense of  the community and no more. In  Ramayya  v. Mrs.
Josephine   Elizabeth(3)    Venkatasubba   Rao,   OCJ and
Venkataramana  Rao,   J.  approved   the   observations  of
Varadachariar, J.  and thought it unnecessary to pursue the
matter further. Mookett and  Krishnaswami Ayyangar,  JJ. in
Goona Durgaprasad  Rao v.  Sudarsanaswami(4) observed that a
convert from the  Baliji   caste  to  Christianity,  on
reconversion went back into the fold of the Baliji community
and where  there was  no evidence  about the  necessity for
expiatory ceremonies,  it was  hardly right for the court to
erect a barrier which the autonomy  of the  caste did not
require, simply because, in  some other community expiatory
ceremonies were thought necessary.
     In Rajagopal  v. Armugam  and others(5),  the appellant
was elected  from a constituency reserved for members of the
Schedule Castes and the  election  was questioned  on the
ground that  he was  not a Hindu but a Christian and that he
was not qualified be  elected from  a constituency reserved
for the Scheduled Castes. The
977
court found  that the  appellant had  become a Christian in
1949 and  that from  about 1967 onwards he certainly started
professing the Hindu religion. The court however, held that
the appellant  had lost his  Adi  Dravida  Hindu  caste  on
embracing Christianity and,  on  the  evidence before the
court, it  was not possible to hold that he had regained his
caste on  reconversion to  Cinduism.  The  general  question
whether membership   of  a   caste  could  be acquired  by
conversion or  reconversion to Hinduism was  not decided in
the case,
     Rajagopal, who  succeeded at the election held in 1967,
but whose election was set aside on the ground that he was a
Christian and  not a  member of the  Scheduled Castes and
Armugam who  lost the  election in  1967,  but successfully
challenged the election of  Rajagopal by way of an election
petition (vide Rajagopal v.  Armugam(1) referred  to in the
previous paragraph)  were again contestants at the election
held in 1972 from the same constituency reserved for members
of the Scheduled Castes,  Rajgopal was again Successful in
the election.  His  election  was  once more  impeached  by
Arumugam. But this time Rajgopal farred better. His election
was upheld  first by  the High Court and then by the Supreme
Court: (1976  (3) S.C.R. 82) The Supreme Court held that the
Question whether Rajagopal embraced Christianity in 1949 and
whether he was reconeverted to Hinduism was concluded by the
earlier dectsion of the court. The view of the High Court ie
the immediate  case before  them  that on  reconversion  to
Hinduism, he  could revert  to his  original caste if he was
accepted as  such by  the other members of  the  caste was
accepted as correct On the evidence, it was found that after
reconversion to Hinduism he was recognised and accepted as a
member of  the Adi  Dravida Hindu caste by the other members
of the community. The court consisting  of Chandrachud, J.
(as he then was), Bhagwati and Sarkaria, JJ. noticed that it
was not an infrequent phenomenon-in South India for a person
to continue  to be  regarded as belonging to  his  original
caste even after conversion to Christianity The decisions of
the High  Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kothapalli Narasayya v.
Jammana Jogi  and K.  Narasimha Reddy v.G.  Bhupatti were
noticed. It was then observed:
 "It cannot, therefore, be laid down as an absolute
978
     rule uniformly  applicable in all cases that whenever a
     member  of a  caste  is  converted  from Hinduism  to
     Christianity, he  loses his membership of the caste. It
     is true that  ordinarily   that on   conversion  to
     Christianity, he  would cease  to be  a member  of the
     caste, but that is  not an  invariable rule.  It would
     depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and
     regulations. There are castes,  particularly in  South
     India,  where   the  consequence  does  not  follow  on
     conversion since  such castes  comprise from Hindus and
     Christians".
The learned  Judges than  proceeded to consider the question
whether Rajagopal  could once  again become  a member of Adi
Dravida caste even if it was assume that he had ceased to be
such on conversion to Christianity. After referring to the
Madras cases already noticed by us earlier, it was held:
 "These cases show that  the consistent view taken
     in this  country from the time Administrator-General of
     Madras v. Anandachari was decided, that is, since 1886,
     has been that on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can
     once again become a member of the caste in which he has
     born and  to which he belonged  before  conversion  to
     another religion, if the members of  the caste accept
     him as a member. There is no reason either on principle
     or on  authority which  should compel  us to  disregard
     this view which has prevailed for almost a century and
     lay down  a different  rule on the subject. If a person
     who has embraced another religion can be reconverted to
     Hinduism, there  is no rational principle why he should
     not be  able to  come back to his caste, if the other
     members of the csste  are prepared to readmit him as a
     member. It stands to  reason that he should be able to
     come back to  the fold  to  which  he  once  belonged
     provided of course the community is willing to take him
     within the fold .."
 "....... A  Mahar or a Koli or a Mala would not be
     recognised as  anything but a Mahar or a Koli or a Mala
     after reconversion to Hinduism and he would suffer from
     the same social and economic disabilities from which he
     suffered before  he was  converted to another religion.
     It is,  therefore, obvious that the object and purpose
     of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
979
     order, 1950  would be  advanced rather than retarded by
     taking the view that  on reconversion  to Hinduism  a
     person can once again become a member of the Scheduled
     Caste to  which he belonged prior to his conversion. We
     accordingly agree with the view taken by the High Court
     that on  reconversion to  Hinduism, the  1st respondent
     could once again revert  to his  original Adi  Dravida
     caste if  he was  accepted as such by the other members
     of the cast."
     In Perumal Nader v.  Ponnuswami,(1) the question arose
whether Annapazham,  daughter of  an  Indian  Christian and
herself a Christian by birth. could be converted to Hinduism
without the  performance of  any expiatory  ceremonies ? The
court held that formal ceremony of purification or expiation
was unnecessary. It was observed:
 "A  person   may  be a  Hindu  by  birth  or  by
     conversion. A  mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu
     faith by  a persion  born in  another  faith  does not
     convert him  into a  Hindu, nor  is a  bare declaration
     that he  is  a  Hindu  sufficient to  convert  him  to
     Hinduism, But  a bona fide intention to be converted to
     the Hindu faith, accompanied  by conduct unequivocally
     expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of
     conversion.  No  formal  ceremony of  purification  or
     expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion."
     All the  cases so far considered are from South India.
To conclude  the discussion, we may also refer to Vermani v.
Vermani(2) and Ghatturbhuj Vithaldas  Jasani  v.  Moreshwer
Parashram  &   others(3)  both of  which  are cases from
elsewhere.
     In Virmani v. Virmani, a Full Bench of the Lahore High
Court following the decision of the Madras High Court in ILR
1940 MADRAS  653 held  that it was not necessary for a Hindu
convert to  Christianity to undergo any expiatory ceremonies
before he could revert to his original religion. His conduct
and the circumstance that
980
he  was  received  by his  community were  sufficient  to
establish his reversion to Hinduism.
     In Chatturbhnj's  case,  a question  arose  whether  a
member of  the Mahar  caste which  was one  of the Scheduled
Castes continued  to be a member of the Mahar caste despite
his conversion to the tenets Mahanubhava Panth, a sect, the
founder of   which  repudiated  the  caste  system  and  a
multiplicity  of   Gods.  Bose,  J.  after   noticing the
complexities brought in the train of conversion, observed:
 "Looked at  from the secular point of view, there
     are three factors which have to be considered: (1) the
     reactions of  the old  body, (2)  the intentions of the
     individual himself and (3) the rules of the new order.
     If the  old order is tolerant of the new faith and sees
     no reason to outcaste or ex-communicate the convert and
     the individual  himself desires  and intends  to retain
     his old  social and  political ties,  the conversion is
     only nominal  for all  practical purposes and when  we
     have to  consider the legsl and political rights of the
     old body  the views of the new faith hardly matter. The
     new body  is free to ostracise and outcaste the convert
     from its  fold if he does not adhere to its tenets, but
     it can  hardly claim  the right to interfere in matters
     which concern the political rights of the old body when
     neither the  old body nor the convert is seeking either
     legal or  political favours  from the new as opposed to
     purely spiritual  advantage. On  the other hand, if the
     convert has  shown by his conduct and dealings that his
     break from the old order is so complete and final that
     he no  longer regards  himself as a member  of the old
     body and  there is no reconversion and readmittance to
     the old  fold, it would be  wrong to  hold that he can
     nevertheless claim temporal privileges  and  political
     advantages which are special to the old order."
Bose, J. found that whatever the views of the founder of the
Mahanubhava sect night have been about caste, it was evident
that there  had been  no rigid adherance to  them among his
followers in later years. They had either changed their view
or they had not  been able  to keep  a tight enough control
over converts  who choose to retain their old caste customs.
On a consideration of the evidence it was
981
found that  the convert from the  Mahar caste retained his
caste even after conversion.
     These precedents, particularly those from South India,
clearly establish  that no particular ceremony is prescribed
for conversion to Hinduism  of a  person  who had  earlier
embraced another  religion. Unless the practice of the caste
makes it  necessary, expiatory rites need be performed and,
ordinarily, he regains his  caste unless the community does
not accept  him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that
he regains his caste; it may be more accurate to say that he
never lost  his caste in the first instance when he embraced
another religion.  The practice of caste however irrational
it may appear to  our reason  and however  repugnant it may
appear to our moral and social science, is so deep-rooted in
the Indian  people that its mark does not seem to disappear
only conversion to a  different religion. If it disappears,
only to reappear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not
seem to really disappear  even after some generations after
conversion. In Andhra Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu, there are
several thousands  of Christian families whose forefathers
became Christians and who, though they profess the Christian
religion, nonetheless  observe the  practice of Caste. There
are Christian  Reddies, Christian  Kammas, Ceristian Nadars,
Christian Adi-Andhras, Christian Adi Dravidas and so on. The
practice of  their caste  is  so  rigorous  that  there are
intermarriages with  Hindus of the same  caste but not with
Christians of  another caste. Now,  if  such a  Christian
becomes a  Hindu, surely  he will  revert  to  his  original
caste, if  he had  lost it at all. In fact this process goes
on continuously in India  and generation by generation lost
sheep appear  to return to the casts-fold and are once again
assimilated in that fold. This appears to be particularly so
in the case of members of the Scheduled Castes, who embrace
other religions in their quest for liberation, but return to
their old  religion on finding that their disabilities have
clung to  them with great tenacity. We do not think that any
different principle  will apply to the case of conversion to
Hinduism  of  a person whose fore-fathers  had  abandoned
Hinduism and  embraced another religion from  the principle
applicable to  the case of reconversion  to Hinduism  of  a
person who  himself  had  abandoned  Hinduism  and  embraced
another religion.
     Now, what are the facts of the present case ? The birth
extract of  the first  respondent, Devarajan  shows that his
parents as  Hindu Adi  Dravidas. Through out his educational
career, he  was treated as a Hindu student belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and was
982
awarded scholarships  on  that basis. The  school  records
relating to  his  children  also  show them  as  Hindu Adi
Dravidas. On  one occasion  in the  admission register of a
school, he  was wrongly shown as Adi Dravida Christian, but
it was corrected as  Adi Dravida as far back as in 1948. He
never attended a  church.  On the  other  hand,  there  is
acceptable evidence  to show that he was offering worship to
Hindu deities  in Hindu temples and  that his marriage was
performed according to Hindu custom and rites. Our attention
was however,  drawn to the finding of the Tribunal that the
sisters of  the first  respondent professed  Christianity as
revealed by  their  service  registers. Our  attention was
further invited to certain  evidence  indicating  that the
parents of  the first  respondent had  become Christians and
that the  first respondent himself had been baptised when he
was seven  months old. Even assuming  that the parents and
sisters of  the first  respondent had  become Christians and
that the  first respondent himself had been baptised when he
was seven  months old, we see no difficulty in holding, on
the evidence in the case, that the first respondent had long
since reverted to Hinduism  and to  the Adi  Dravida caste.
There is  not a scrap of acceptable evidence to show that he
ever professed Christianity after  he came  of age.  On the
other hand,  every bit of evidence  in the  case shows that
from his childhood, he was always practising Hindism and was
treated by  everyone concerned as an  Adi Dravidh. There is
then the  outstanding circumstance  that the  voters of the
Rasipuram  Parliamentary   Constituency reserved   for the
Scheduled Castes  accepted his candidature for the reserved
seat and  elected him  to the  Lok Sabha  twice. We  have no
doubt whatsoever  that at all relevant times, he was a Hindu
Adi Dravida  and professed  no religion other than Hinduism.
The case  was rightly  decided by  the Election Tribunal and
the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
H.S.K.   Appeal dismissed.
983