In an important judgment delivered on 26 February 2015, a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice V. Gopala Gowda, has held that if a person who was born as a Christian, and whose parents or earlier generations had converted to Christianity from Hindu religion, reconverts to Hindu religion and if he is accepted by his community after reconversion, then he may get back the Scheduled Caste status if his forefathers belonged to such caste before their conversion to Christianity. This judgment was delivered in the Civil Appeal No. 7065 of 2008 filed by K.P. Manu (whose earlier name was K.P. John).
Brief facts of the case are as under. The great-grandfather of K.P. Manu belonged to Hindu Pulaya Community, which is included in the Scheduled Caste category enjoying reservation benefits, and the great-grandfather had converted to Christianity. Thus, the grandparents as well as parents of K.P. Manu were Christians. K.P. Manu was himself born in 1960 as a Christian with the name of K.P. John. However, sometime in the year 1984 at the age of 24, he converted himself to Hindu religion and changed his name to that of K.P. Manu. On the basis of the reconversion to Hindu religion, he had obtained a certificate from the concerned community on 5th February, 1984.
However, his caste certificate was challenged and the same was cancelled after report of a scrutiny committee. The report of the Scrutiny Committee was influenced by two aspects, namely, that K.P. Manu was born to Christian parents, whose grandparents had embraced Christianity and second, there was no material brought on record to show that he after conversion had been following the traditions and customs of the community. The second conclusion was based mainly on the fact that after reconversion to Hindu religion, he had married a Christian lady.
The High Court of Kerala also accepted the report of the scrutiny committee upholding cancellation of his caste certificate, vide its order dated 10th March, 2006 in M.F.A. No. 55 of 2006.
On the aforesaid order being challenged, the Supreme Court identified three arenas in the said controversy, namely, (1) whether on conversion and at what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste; (ii) whether after his eligibility is accepted and his original community on a collective basis takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the benefit; and (iii) that who should be the authority to opine that he has been following the traditions and customs of a particular caste or not.
After referring to previous judgments of the Supreme Court, in particular, to the decision of a Constitution Bench in the case of the Principal Guntur Medical College, Guntur v. Y. Mohan Rao, (1976) 3 SCC 411, the Supreme Court noted that if the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he is born after the conversion and embraces Hinduism and the members of the caste accept him, he comes within the fold of the caste. The Court also noted that there is no reason that any different principle will apply to a person whose forefathers had abandoned Hinduism.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid case of Y. Mohan Rao has clearly laid down that if a person born to Christian parents, who, belonging to Scheduled Caste had converted themselves to Christianity, the said person on reconversion to his religion and on acceptance by his community with a further rider that he would practise the customs and traditions of the caste, would be treated as a member of the said Scheduled Caste and if the said caste is one of the castes falling within the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, then he will be treated as a Scheduled Caste. The Supreme Court further held that a reading of the said Y. Mohan Rao case shows that it does not lay down that it only would apply to the parents and exclude the grandparents.
In this regard, the Supreme Court also referred to the earlier 3-judge bench decision in the case of S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan, (1984) 2 SCC 112, wherein it had been laid down that if the caste disappears, it disappears only to reappear on reconversion and the mark of caste does not seem to really disappear even after some generations after conversion. The Supreme Court further noted that in that case it had been stated that it did not think that any different principle would apply to the case of conversion to Hinduism of a person whose forefathers 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.
Thus, in the present case, the Supreme Court held that even if the forefathers of a person had converted earlier to Christianity and if such person reconverts to Hinduism, he may get his original caste back on his reconversion if his community accept him. Thus, he can claim the benefit of reservation, if he belonged to a reserved category.
At this stage, the Supreme Court also dealt with the issue as to how does one find out about the forefathers since there can be a false claim; however, the Court held that it would be the subject matter of inquiry, and that the principle of “definitive traceability” may be applied during the inquiry and the onus shall be on the person who claims the benefit after reconversion. Thus, such person has to establish beyond a shadow of doubt that his forefathers belonged to the scheduled caste that comes within the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and he has been reconverted and his community has accepted him and taken him within its fold.
The Supreme Court held that three things that need to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are:
- there must be absolutely clear cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950;
- there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and
- there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community.
The Court held that each of these 3 aspects is very significant, and even if one is not substantiated, the recognition as a Schedule Caste would not be possible.
In the present case, objection had also been taken on the ground that K.P. Manu had married a Christian lady after his conversion to Hindu religion. However, the Supreme Court held that when the community has accepted and the community, despite the marriage, has not ex-communicated or expelled him, such marriage would not be a disqualification to be granted the benefit of Scheduled Caste on reconversion. Accordingly, the Court held that K.P. Manu after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby he became a member of the scheduled caste.
This judgment of the Supreme Court may have relevance for the so-called “Ghar-wapsi” programme being conducted by sister organisations of RSS to reconvert to Hinduism those persons who had themselves or their forefathers had earlier converted to other religions (such as Christianity or Muslim) from Hinduism. So, if a person reconverts to Hinduism as a consequence of “Ghar-wapsi” programme, he may regain the reservation benefits of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his forefathers earlier belonged to such category before their conversion to other religions.
The full judgment of the Supreme Court can be seen here.
