Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently said that conversion to Hinduism cannot be permitted if its purpose is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in the religion.

The apex court held that such a conversion would be a fraud upon the Constitution, and the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motives would only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan dismissed a plea by C. Selvarani against the Madras High Court's order of January 24, 2023, which declined her plea for a direction to the Pondicherry authorities to issue her a Scheduled Caste community certificate.

"We may observe that 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," the bench said.

The court found, in the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrated that the appellant professed Christianity and actively practiced the faith by attending church regularly.

"Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks a 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. 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," the bench said.

In the present case, the court noted, the appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any caste. "In any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one loses their caste and cannot be identified by it," the court said. Though the appellant claimed reconversion to Hinduism, it was disputed.

"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 bench said.

The court also found the contention by the appellant that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, was unsustainable in the facts of the case.

"The appellant and her family, if they really intended to get themselves converted, ought to have done some positive act to evince such conversion rather than a meek claim to be practicing Hinduism," the bench said.

During 2015, the appellant applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk and, after the written examination, she was selected, and her name was found at Serial No. 48 under the Scheduled Caste category.

In the course of certificate verification, though the appellant possessed the required certificates, the respondent authorities insisted that she produce the original latest community, residence, and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar, within a period of one year from the date of publication of results, which would satisfy the requirement of being a resident in Puducherry.

However, on March 29, 2016, the authorities rejected the appellant’s application on the ground that she did not profess Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism and therefore, the community certificate under the SC Order, 1964, could not be issued to her.

The appellant claimed she was born on November 22, 1990, to one Christian S/o Mounien and Santhamarie, and her birth was duly registered with Pondicherry Municipality, and her parents were permanent residents of Kombakkampet, Pondicherry.

According to the appellant, her father, grandparents, and great-grandparents professed the Hindu religion and belonged to the Valluvan Caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes under the SC Order, 1964. Her mother, Santhamarie, was a Christian by birth, and after marriage, she got converted to the Hindu religion and started to profess the same.

Thus, according to the appellant, she was a Hindu by religion and belonged to the Valluvan Caste; and she successfully completed her school education and graduation by availing herself of concessions under the Hindu Adi Dravida quota.

"Even assuming that the appellant’s mother had converted to Hinduism after marriage, she ought not to have baptized her children in the church, and hence, the statement of the appellant is untrustworthy," the bench said.

The court also noted the field verification clearly revealed the registration of the marriage of the parents of the appellant under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the baptism of the appellant and her brother, and also the fact that they had been regularly attending church.

The court also pointed out the certified copies of the baptism and the extract from the register of marriage of the appellant’s parents at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, gathered by the Village Administrative Officer, Murungapakkam Village, further disclosed that the appellant’s father was a converted Christian and the appellant was baptized after her birth.

"Thus, it can safely be inferred by us that the appellant is a Christian by religion and she does not profess Hinduism. In view of that, in terms of the SC Order, 1964, as per which, the Scheduled Caste community certificate can be issued only to a person who is professing either Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism, the appellant is not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate," the bench said.

The court also said it was not evident from records, as to how the appellant was issued a Scheduled Caste community certificate earlier. But for the requirement under the declaration in the application for the post of UDC, the de novo enquiry would not have happened.

The bench also pointed out it is a settled law that an illegality cannot be perpetuated.

It also noted a feeble argument was made by the counsel for the appellant that the baptism was done when she was less than three months old. The same does not inspire our confidence as she did not make any attempt to cancel the registration of baptism, nor did she file any declaratory suit in this regard, court held.

"Any interference with such findings of fact is unwarranted unless the findings are perverse so as to shock the conscience of the court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent authorities, after a thorough enquiry and having analysed the documentary evidence, reached the right conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate," the bench said.

Case Title: M/C Selvarani Vs The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector And Others