Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Scheduled Caste Certificate to Converted Christian: C. Selvarani vs. The Special Secretary (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 900

Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can a person who converted to Christianity claim a Scheduled Caste certificate by asserting a return to Hinduism? The Supreme Court of India addressed this complex issue in a recent judgment, focusing on the eligibility criteria for Scheduled Caste status under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. The court examined whether a person, born into a Christian family but claiming to have reconverted to Hinduism, could be granted a Scheduled Caste certificate. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan, with Justice R. Mahadevan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, C. Selvarani, was born on November 22, 1990, in Pondicherry to a Christian father and a mother who, according to the appellant, later converted to Hinduism. Selvarani claimed to belong to the Valluvan caste, a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. She had availed concessions under the Hindu Adi Dravida quota during her education. In 2015, she applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and was selected under the Scheduled Caste category. However, during certificate verification, authorities insisted on a recent community certificate. Her application for a Scheduled Caste certificate was rejected by the Tahsildar on March 29, 2016, on the ground that she did not profess Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism. Appeals against this order were also dismissed.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the authorities to conduct an inquiry into the matter. After the inquiry, the Tahsildar again rejected her claim on June 19, 2017, citing that she did not profess Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism. This order was also upheld in subsequent appeals. The appellant then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and later filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially faced rejection of her Scheduled Caste certificate application by the Tahsildar, which was upheld in appeals. The High Court, in an earlier writ petition, directed the authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry. Despite the inquiry, the Tahsildar again rejected her claim, which was upheld by the appellate authorities. The High Court dismissed her subsequent writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Soosai v. Union of India. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Article 341 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to specify Scheduled Castes in each state or union territory. The Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, issued under this power, lists the Scheduled Castes for Pondicherry. Clause 2 of the order specifies that only persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism can be deemed members of a Scheduled Caste. The Valluvan caste is recognized as a Scheduled Caste under this order at Sl. No. 13.

The relevant part of Article 341 of the Constitution of India is as follows:

“341. Scheduled Castes
(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

Clause 2 of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, reads as follows:

“2. The castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes specified in the Schedule to this Order shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the Union territory of Pondicherry so far as regards members thereof resident in that Union territory :
Provided that no person, who professes a religion different from the Hindu (the Sikh or the Buddhist) religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that she is a Hindu by religion and belongs to the Valluvan caste, which is a recognized Scheduled Caste.
• She claimed that she has always had an affinity for Hinduism, regularly visiting temples and worshipping Hindu deities.
• She asserted that her father was a Hindu, and her mother, though Christian by birth, converted to Hinduism after marriage.
• Her grandparents and great-grandparents belonged to the Valluvan caste.
• She had been treated as a Scheduled Caste throughout her educational career.
• Her father, brother, and herself possessed Scheduled Caste certificates.
• She argued that caste is determined by birth and does not cease to exist upon conversion, but is merely eclipsed and can be regained upon reconversion.
• She contended that she had reconverted to Hinduism and was accepted by the community.
• She relied on several cases to support her claim that reconversion is possible and that no specific ceremony is required for reconversion to Hinduism.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the appellant’s father was a converted Christian.
• The appellant was baptized on January 6, 1991, at the Parish of Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Puducherry, as per the entry in the Register of Baptism dated November 20, 2015.
• The Village Administrative Officer’s report indicated that the appellant’s father was a converted Christian and that the appellant was also a Christian.
• An objection was raised by a villager, Anand, stating that the appellant’s family was Christian. This was corroborated by other villagers.
• The Tahsildar’s order dated March 29, 2016, stated that the appellant did not profess Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism, and therefore, could not be issued a Scheduled Caste certificate.
• The appellant’s application was rejected after an inquiry, as she did not meet the criteria for a Scheduled Caste certificate.
• The High Court had correctly upheld the decision of the respondent authorities.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to a Scheduled Caste community certificate, indicating that she belongs to the Valluvan caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes in the S.C. Order, 1964.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Soosai v. Union of India to uphold the validity of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. The Court considered S.Anbalagan v. B.Devarajan, The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur v. Mohan Rao, KP Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee, Mohammad Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru, and Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi to analyze the concept of reconversion and caste status, but found them factually distinguishable. The Court also referenced Sapna Jacob, Minor v. State of Kerala, to emphasize that courts can assess the genuineness of conversions. The Court cited State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira to support the State’s power to take action against fraudulently obtained certificates. The Court also referred to S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam to highlight the loss of caste upon conversion to Christianity. The Court also relied on Article 341 of the Constitution of India and the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, to determine eligibility for Scheduled Caste status.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Baptism and Christian Faith: The Court emphasized that the appellant’s baptism at a young age and her family’s active practice of Christianity were strong indicators of her religious affiliation.
• Lack of Genuine Reconversion: The Court found no concrete evidence of a genuine reconversion to Hinduism. The appellant’s claims were not supported by any formal ceremony or public declaration.
• Documentary Evidence: The Court relied on the baptismal records and other documents that showed the appellant and her family were Christian.
• Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964: The Court strictly adhered to the requirements of the order, which specifies that only Hindus, Sikhs, or Buddhists can be deemed members of a Scheduled Caste.
• Fraud on the Constitution: The Court was wary of individuals claiming Scheduled Caste status solely for availing reservation benefits, which it viewed as a fraud on the Constitution.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the appellant’s baptism, her family’s religious practices, and the lack of evidence of genuine reconversion. While legal provisions were considered, the factual findings played a more significant role in the decision.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court concluded that the appellant was a born Christian and did not meet the criteria for a Scheduled Caste certificate as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. The Court also emphasized that the appellant’s claim of reconversion was not supported by any concrete evidence. The Court held that:

“…the appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any caste. In any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one loses her caste and cannot be identified by it. As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim.”

The Court further stated:

“The conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through Arya Samaj. 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 Court also observed:

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• A person born into a Christian family cannot claim Scheduled Caste status by merely asserting a return to Hinduism without concrete evidence of genuine reconversion.
• The Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, strictly requires a person to profess Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism to be eligible for a Scheduled Caste certificate.
• Courts can assess the genuineness of religious conversions, especially when such conversions are claimed for availing reservation benefits.
• The State is empowered to take action against fraudulently obtained certificates.
• Caste status is lost upon conversion to Christianity, and a mere claim of reconversion without evidence is insufficient to regain it.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person who has converted to Christianity and has not provided any evidence of a genuine reconversion to Hinduism is not eligible for a Scheduled Caste certificate. This case reinforces the principle that caste status is lost upon conversion to Christianity and that mere claims of reconversion are insufficient to regain it. The judgment aligns with existing legal principles and does not introduce any new doctrines but emphasizes the need for concrete evidence when claiming reconversion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in C. Selvarani vs. The Special Secretary – Cum – District Collector and Others reaffirms the strict criteria for Scheduled Caste status under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. The Court held that a person born into a Christian family, who has not provided concrete evidence of a genuine reconversion to Hinduism, is not eligible for a Scheduled Caste certificate. The judgment underscores the importance of genuine religious affiliation and the need to prevent the misuse of reservation benefits.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Categories:

• Caste Certificate
• Scheduled Castes
• Religious Conversion
• Article 341, Constitution of India
• Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Public Employment
• Reservation
• Fraudulent Certificates

FAQ

Q: Can a person who converted to Christianity claim a Scheduled Caste certificate?

A: No, a person who converted to Christianity generally loses their caste status and is not eligible for a Scheduled Caste certificate unless they provide concrete evidence of a genuine reconversion to Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism and are accepted by their community.

Q: What is the key requirement for obtaining a Scheduled Caste certificate in Pondicherry?

A: According to the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, the person must profess Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism to be eligible for a Scheduled Caste certificate.

Q: What does the Supreme Court say about reconversion to Hinduism?

A: The Supreme Court has stated that a mere claim of reconversion is not sufficient. There must be concrete evidence of a genuine return to Hinduism, including acceptance by the community and abandonment of the previous religion. A public declaration and/or a ceremony through Arya Samaj is required.

Q: What kind of evidence is required to prove reconversion?

A: Evidence of a formal ceremony, public declaration, and acceptance by the community are required to prove reconversion. A mere claim of practicing Hindu customs is not enough.

Q: What happens if a Scheduled Caste certificate is obtained fraudulently?

A: The State is empowered to take action against fraudulently obtained certificates. Such certificates can be canceled, and the person may face legal consequences.

Q: What is the significance of baptism in this case?

A: The appellant’s baptism was a significant factor in the Court’s decision, as it showed that she was born Christian and had not genuinely reconverted to Hinduism.