The Supreme Court stated that giving Scheduled Caste status to a Christian who converted to Hinduism just to get job reservations is a violation of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that granting Scheduled Caste status to a person who is Christian but claims to follow Hinduism solely to benefit from job reservations is against the purpose of such reservations and constitutes a violation of the Constitution. The case was an appeal against a Madras High Court decision that dismissed the appellant’s request to cancel the proceedings against her and to issue her a Scheduled Caste certificate under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. The judges, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, stated that if someone converts mainly to gain reservation benefits without genuine belief in the new religion, it should not be allowed, as this undermines the social goals of the reservation policy.
Senior Advocate N. S. Nappinai represented the appellant, while AOR Aravindh S. represented the respondents. The appellant was born in 1990 to a Christian father and mother, with her birth registered in Pondicherry. She claims her father, grandparents, and great-grandparents were Hindus from the Valluvan Caste, recognized as a Scheduled Caste. Her mother converted to Hinduism after marriage. In 2015, the appellant applied for a position as an Upper Division Clerk and was selected.
Her application for a community certificate under the S.C. Order 1964 was denied because she did not identify as Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh. The authorities rejected her appeal against this decision. She then took her case to the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the cancellation of her selection for the UDC position, but that was also turned down. After the High Court dismissed her petition, she filed a new appeal. The appellant argued that she practices Hinduism and belongs to the Valluvan caste, which is included in the S.C. Order, 1964, making her eligible for benefits under the Adi Dravida quota.
Initially, the Bench noted that the S.C. Order, 1964, lists 15 castes, including Valluvan as a recognized Scheduled Caste. They referred to a report from the Village Administrative Officer that confirmed the appellant’s father was from a Scheduled Caste, while her mother was a Christian, and their marriage followed Christian customs. Records indicated that the appellant’s father converted to Christianity through baptism, and both she and her brother were also baptized, regularly attending church. The Bench concluded that the appellant was born a Christian and therefore could not claim a certificate under the Scheduled Caste category.
The Bench stated, “We can conclude that the appellant is a Christian and does not follow Hinduism. According to the S.C. Order of 1964, a Scheduled Caste community certificate can only be given to someone who practices Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for this certificate.” The case facts indicated that the appellant was born a Christian and had no caste affiliation. “Once someone converts to Christianity, they lose their caste and cannot be identified by it. Since the claim of reconversion is disputed, there needs to be more than just a statement. The conversion did not occur through any ceremony or Arya Samaj, and there was no public announcement. There is no evidence that she or her family has returned to Hinduism, and it is confirmed that the appellant still practices Christianity,” the Court noted.
The Bench rejected the argument that caste disappears upon conversion and returns upon reconversion, stating, “Granting Scheduled Caste status to the appellant, who is a Christian but claims to be Hindu only to access job reservations, contradicts the purpose of reservations and would be a misuse of the Constitution.” The appeal was dismissed, with the Bench concluding, “The evidence shows that the appellant practices Christianity and attends church regularly. Despite this, she claims to be Hindu and seeks a Scheduled Caste certificate for employment. This dual claim is not valid, and she cannot identify as a Hindu after baptism.”
Cause Title: C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary- Cumdistrict Collector and Others [Neutral Citaiton: 2024 INSC 900]
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate N. S. Nappinai,Advocates V. Balaji,Asaithambi Msm, Atul Sharma, C. Kannan, Nizamuddin, B. Dhananjay, AOR Rakesh K. Sharma
Respondents: AOR Aravindh S., Advocate Akshay Gupta
