Summary
The appellant was baptised in infancy, her parents married by Christian rites, and she regularly attended church. She was therefore a Christian and not entitled to a Scheduled Caste certificate under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, which excludes anyone not professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism. Her claim of reconversion was unsupported by any evidence. Claiming Hindu status only to obtain reservation while practising Christianity is a fraud on the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, claiming to profess Hinduism and belong to the Valluvan caste, was entitled to a Scheduled Caste community certificate under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
- Whether the appellant or her family had reconverted to Hinduism so that her caste revived on the doctrine of eclipse.
- Whether the rejection of her application violated natural justice.
Provisions considered
- Article 341, Constitution of IndiaThe President, acting under Article 341(1), issued the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, specifying the castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes for the Union territory. (¶ 8)
- Clause 2 and proviso; Schedule (Sl. No. 13, Valluvan), Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964Valluvan is listed as a Scheduled Caste, but under the proviso no one professing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism is deemed a member of a Scheduled Caste. Because the appellant professes Christianity, she is not entitled to the certificate. (¶¶ 8, 12)
- Registration of marriage, Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872Field verification showed the appellant's parents' marriage registered under this Act at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur. This was one of the factual findings showing the family were Christians. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Article 25, Constitution of IndiaEvery citizen may practise and profess the religion of their choice, but conversion undertaken mainly to obtain reservation benefits, without real belief, cannot be allowed. (¶ 15)
Held
- Courts cannot measure the sincerity or depth of a religious belief, but they can infer from the circumstances the real intention behind a person's acts, including whether a claimed conversion was a means to some other end. (¶ 10)
- There was no breach of natural justice. The Tahsildar's order of 19.06.2017 was passed after the appellant had received all the material relied on, including the objection, the baptism and marriage register extracts and the Village Administrative Officer's report, and after considering her reply. (¶ 11)
- The documentary evidence showed that the appellant's father had converted to Christianity, her parents married by Christian rites, she and her brother were baptised, and she regularly attended church. She was therefore a Christian, and under the 1964 Order she could not be issued a Scheduled Caste certificate. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Where reconversion is disputed, more than a bare claim is needed: some positive act such as a ceremony, conversion through the Arya Samaj, or a public declaration. There was no such evidence. The appellant's witnesses even said her mother continued to attend church, contrary to the claim that she had become a Hindu. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- A person born a Christian cannot be associated with any caste, and conversion to Christianity causes loss of caste. The doctrine of eclipse and revival of caste on reconversion did not help the appellant, because neither reconversion nor acceptance by the caste was shown. The Court followed S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam and distinguished the decisions she cited on their facts. (¶ 14)
- The argument that she was baptised as an infant did not help her, since she never sought to cancel the baptism entry or filed a declaratory suit. (¶ 14)
- Earlier community certificates issued to her do not bind the authorities, because an illegality cannot be perpetuated and the State may act against certificates obtained wrongly. The authorities were right to refer her existing certificate to the District Committee for cancellation. (¶¶ 12.1, 13)
- A person who professes and practises Christianity but claims to be Hindu only to obtain reservation in employment cannot be given Scheduled Caste status. Such a dual claim defeats the object of reservation and is a fraud on the Constitution. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court order dismissing the writ petition affirmed. No order as to costs.