Religious Conversion Only To Avail Reservation Benefits Without Actual Belief Impermissible, Fraud On Constitution: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld a Madras High Court decision denying a Scheduled Caste ("SC") certificate to a woman born as a Christian who claimed to be Hindu while applying for an Upper Division Clerk job in Puducherry. The Court ruled that religious conversion undertaken solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermines the fundamental...
The Supreme Court upheld a Madras High Court decision denying a Scheduled Caste ("SC") certificate to a woman born as a Christian who claimed to be Hindu while applying for an Upper Division Clerk job in Puducherry. The Court ruled that religious conversion undertaken solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermines the fundamental social objectives of the reservation policy.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that religious conversion for the sole purpose of availing benefits is seen as a fraud on the Constitution and contrary to the ethos of reservation policies.
“In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity and actively practices 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. 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 judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan stated.
The appellant claimed she was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, both of whom later practiced Hinduism. She also asserted that her family belonged to the Valluvan caste, and throughout her education, she was treated as part of the SC community, with her father and brother holding SC certificates.
However, the bench noted that a report from the Village Administrative Officer, supported by documentary evidence confirmed that her father was from a Scheduled Caste but had converted to Christianity. The appellant was born in 1990 and baptized in January 1991, shortly after her brother's baptism in 1989.
The Court held that Scheduled Caste benefits cannot be granted to individuals who have converted to Christianity unless they can demonstrate, with compelling evidence, both reconversion to Hinduism and acceptance by their original caste. Despite the appellant's assertions of following Hindu practices, she failed to provide sufficient proof of either reconversion or caste reacceptance.
“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 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. As noticed above, the evidence on hand is also against the appellant. Therefore, the contention raised on the side of the appellant that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, is unsustainable in the facts of the case.”, the Court observed.
The Court criticized conversion from one religion to another just to derive the benefits of reservation, not with any actual belief in the other religion.
“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 on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Ms. N. S. Nappinai, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas B, Adv. Ms. Tharane S, Adv
Case Title: C. SELVARANI VERSUS THE SPECIAL SECRETARY- CUMDISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 923