S. Anbalagan Vs. B. Devarajan &
Ors [1983] INSC 191 (5 December 1983)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 411 1984 SCR (1) 973 1984
SCC (2) 112 1983 SCALE (2)849
CITATOR INFO :
F 1984 SC 600 (19) R 1984 SC1260 (15)
ACT:
Hindu Law-Hindu embracing another
religion-whether retains original cast. On reconversion to Hinduism-Whether
performance of any particular ceremony or expiatory rites necessary.
Representation of the people Act.-Parliamentary
election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether a Hindu Adi Dravida
(scheduled cast) on reconversion to Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes.
HEADNOTE:
The first respondent was elected to the Lok
Sabha from a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, The
appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on the ground that he
was not a member of the Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the
first respondent belonged to the Scheduled Caste and upheld the election. Hence
this appeal. The appellant urged that the parents and the sisters of the
respondent were shown to be Christians and the respondent was born a Christian
and there was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on
conversion to Hinduism.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD: At all relevant time, the first
respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than
Hinduism.
The precedents particularly those from South
India, clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed for
reconversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier embraced another religion.
Unless the practice of the Caste makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be
performed and, ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does not
accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that he regains his caste,
it may be more accurate to say that he never lost his caste in the first
instance when he embraced another religion. The practice of caste however
irrational it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may appear to
our moral and social sense, is so de eprooted in the Indian people that its
mark does not seem to disappear on conversion to a different religion. If it
disappears, it disappears only to re 974 appear on reconversion. The mark of
caste does not seem to really disappear even after some generations after
conversion. [981A-C] Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari & Ors.
ILR 9 MADRAS 466, Muthusami Mudalia &
Anr. v. Masilamani & Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa
Konar, 67 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth, AIR 1937
MAD 172, Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami, ILR 1940 MAD 653, Rajgopal v.
Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR 254, Rajgopal v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254,
Perumal Nadar v;
Ponnuswami [1971] I SCR 49, Vermani v.
Vermani AIR 1943 LAHORE 51 and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer
Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.
In the instant case the birth extract of the
first respondent shows his parents as Hindu Adi Dravidas. Throughout his
educational career, he was treated as a Hindu student belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and was awarded scholarships on that basis. The school records
relating to his children also show them as Hindu Adi Dravidas. He never
attended a church. On the other hand there is acceptable evidence to show that
he was offering worship to Hindu deities in Hindu temples and that his marriage
was performed according to Hindu custom and rites. Even assuming that the parents
and sisters of the first respondent had become Christians and that the first
respondent himself had been baptised when he was seven months old, there is no
difficulty in holding, on the evidence in the case, that the first respondent
had long since reverted to Hinduism and to the Adi Dravida Caste. There is not
a scrap of acceptable evidence to show that he ever professed Christianity
after he came of age, On the other hand, every bit of evidence in the case
shows that from his childhood, he was always practising Hinduism and was
treated by everyone concerned as an Adi Dravida. There is then the outstanding
circumstance that the voters of the Constituency reserved for the Scheduled
Castes accepted his candidature for the reserved seat and elected him to the
Lok Sabha twice. [891H; 892A-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 544 of 1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23rd
December, 1980 of the Madras High Court at Madras in Election Petition No. 1 of
1980.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.N. Ramalngam and A.T.M.
Sampath for the Appellant.
M.C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and K.S.
Chowdhary for the Respondents.
A.V. Rangam for the Respondent No. 7.
975 The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. 3, 26, 112 adult men and women voters of Rasipuram
Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted the
candidature of the first Respondent, B. Devarajan for the reserved seat,
apparently considered him as a member of the Scheduled Castes, voted for him
and elected him to the Lok Sabha, by a convincing majority of nearly sixty
thousand votes at the election held in January 1980. And, it was not the first
time. He was in fact a sitting member of the Lok Sabha having been elected from
the same reserved constituency at the previous general election also, But the
verdict of the people was not sufficient for the appellant, S. Anbalagan, who
secured 1,76,240 votes in the January 1980 poll and lost the election. He
wanted the verdict of an Election Tribunal on the question whether the
respondent was a Charistian and not a member of the Scheduled Castes, as
claimed by him. So he filed an election petition questioning the election on
that ground. The Election Tribunal on an eleborate consideration of the
evidence held that the appellant belonged to the Scheduled Castes and, on that
finding, upheld the election. Anbalagan has preferred this appeal.
Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the
appellant, canvassed the finding of the Election Tribunal that the respondent
was a Hindu Adi Dravida and, therefore, a member of the Scheduled Castes. He
argued that the parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown to be
Christians and the respondent though obviously a Christian himself was
pretending to be, a member of the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of gaining
some advantages. He invited our attention to the Baptismal certificate and
certain other documents and urged that the Respondent was born a Christian and
there was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on
conversion to Hinduism.
In order to properly appreciate the questions
involved, it is necessary first to understand the legal position in regard to
caste status on conversion or reconversion to Hinduism.
In Administrator-General of Madras v.
Anandachari & Others (1), a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court
held that the conversion of a Hindu Brahmin to Christianity rendered him,
according to Hindu Law, an out caste and degraded. It was also observed that
the degradation might be atoned for and the convert readmitted to his status as
a Brahmin, if he at any time during his 976 life renounced Christianity and
performed the rites of expiation enjoined by his caste.
In Muthusami Mudaliar & Anr. v.
Masilamani & Others(1) Shankaran Nair, J. explained at length the process
of formation of castes and also pointed out how simple the matter of
reconversion to Hinduism was when a Hindu changed his religion and later
reverted back to Hinduism.
In Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar(2),
Varadachariar, J. explained the observations made in certain cases by Ananta
Krishna Iyer, J. about the necessity of expiatory ceremonies for reconversion
to Hinduism and pointed out that in those cases, the alleged reconversion was
into the Brahmin community of Hindus and it was possible to suggest that
certain vedic rites would have been adopted in such cases. Expiatory
ceremonies, it was further pointed out, would be necessary if such was the
practice of the community and not otherwise. One had, therefore, only to look
to the sense of the community and no more. In Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine
Elizabeth(3) Venkatasubba Rao, OCJ and Venkataramana Rao, J. approved the
observations of Varadachariar, J. and thought it unnecessary to pursue the
matter further. Mookett and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, JJ. in Goona Durgaprasad Rao
v. Sudarsanaswami(4) observed that a convert from the Baliji caste to
Christianity, on reconversion went back into the fold of the Baliji community
and where there was no evidence about the necessity for expiatory ceremonies,
it was hardly right for the court to erect a barrier which the autonomy of the
caste did not require, simply because, in some other community expiatory
ceremonies were thought necessary.
In Rajagopal v. Armugam and others(5), the
appellant was elected from a constituency reserved for members of the Schedule
Castes and the election was questioned on the ground that he was not a Hindu
but a Christian and that he was not qualified be elected from a constituency
reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The 977 court found that the appellant had
become a Christian in 1949 and that from about 1967 onwards he certainly
started professing the Hindu religion. The court however, held that the
appellant had lost his Adi Dravida Hindu caste on embracing Christianity and,
on the evidence before the court, it was not possible to hold that he had
regained his caste on reconversion to Cinduism. The general question whether
membership of a caste could be acquired by conversion or reconversion to
Hinduism was not decided in the case, Rajagopal, who succeeded at the election
held in 1967, but whose election was set aside on the ground that he was a
Christian and not a member of the Scheduled Castes and Armugam who lost the
election in 1967, but successfully challenged the election of Rajagopal by way
of an election petition (vide Rajagopal v. Armugam(1) referred to in the
previous paragraph) were again contestants at the election held in 1972 from
the same constituency reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes, Rajgopal
was again Successful in the election. His election was once more impeached by
Arumugam. But this time Rajgopal farred better. His election was upheld first
by the High Court and then by the Supreme Court: (1976 (3) S.C.R. 82) The
Supreme Court held that the Question whether Rajagopal embraced Christianity in
1949 and whether he was reconeverted to Hinduism was concluded by the earlier
dectsion of the court. The view of the High Court ie the immediate case before
them that on reconversion to Hinduism, he could revert to his original caste if
he was accepted as such by the other members of the caste was accepted as
correct On the evidence, it was found that after reconversion to Hinduism he
was recognised and accepted as a member of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste by the
other members of the community. The court consisting of Chandrachud, J.
(as he then was), Bhagwati and Sarkaria, JJ.
noticed that it was not an infrequent phenomenon-in South India for a person to
continue to be regarded as belonging to his original caste even after
conversion to Christianity The decisions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Kothapalli Narasayya v. Jammana Jogi and K. Narasimha Reddy v.G. Bhupatti were
noticed. It was then observed:
"It cannot, therefore, be laid down as
an absolute 978 rule uniformly applicable in all cases that whenever a member
of a caste is converted from Hinduism to Christianity, he loses his membership
of the caste. It is true that ordinarily that on conversion to Christianity, he
would cease to be a member of the caste, but that is not an invariable rule. It
would depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and regulations. There
are castes, particularly in South India, where the consequence does not follow
on conversion since such castes comprise from Hindus and Christians".
The learned Judges than proceeded to consider
the question whether Rajagopal could once again become a member of Adi Dravida
caste even if it was assume that he had ceased to be such on conversion to
Christianity. After referring to the Madras cases already noticed by us
earlier, it was held:
"These cases show that the consistent
view taken in this country from the time Administrator-General of Madras v.
Anandachari was decided, that is, since 1886, has been that on reconversion to
Hinduism, a person can once again become a member of the caste in which he has
born and to which he belonged before conversion to another religion, if the
members of the caste accept him as a member. There is no reason either on
principle or on authority which should compel us to disregard this view which
has prevailed for almost a century and lay down a different rule on the
subject. If a person who has embraced another religion can be reconverted to
Hinduism, there is no rational principle why he should not be able to come back
to his caste, if the other members of the csste are prepared to readmit him as
a member. It stands to reason that he should be able to come back to the fold
to which he once belonged provided of course the community is willing to take
him within the fold .." "....... A Mahar or a Koli or a Mala would
not be recognised as anything but a Mahar or a Koli or a Mala after
reconversion to Hinduism and he would suffer from the same social and economic
disabilities from which he suffered before he was converted to another
religion.
It is, therefore, obvious that the object and
purpose of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) 979 order, 1950 would be
advanced rather than retarded by taking the view that on reconversion to
Hinduism a person can once again become a member of the Scheduled Caste to
which he belonged prior to his conversion. We accordingly agree with the view
taken by the High Court that on reconversion to Hinduism, the 1st respondent
could once again revert to his original Adi Dravida caste if he was accepted as
such by the other members of the cast." In Perumal Nader v. Ponnuswami,(1)
the question arose whether Annapazham, daughter of an Indian Christian and
herself a Christian by birth. Could be converted to Hinduism without the performance
of any expiatory ceremonies ? The court held that formal ceremony of
purification or expiation was unnecessary. It was observed:
"A person may be a Hindu by birth or by
conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu faith by a persion born
in another faith does not convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration
that he is a Hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism, But a bona fide
intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct
unequivocally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of
conversion. No formal ceremony of purification or expiation is necessary to
effectuate conversion." All the cases so far considered are from South
India.
To conclude the discussion, we may also refer
to Vermani v. Vermani(2) and Ghatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer
Parashram & others(3) both of which are cases from elsewhere.
In Virmani v. Virmani, a Full Bench of the
Lahore High Court following the decision of the Madras High Court in ILR 1940
MADRAS 653 held that it was not necessary for a Hindu convert to Christianity
to undergo any expiatory ceremonies before he could revert to his original
religion. His conduct and the circumstance that 980 he was received by his
community were sufficient to establish his reversion to Hinduism.
In Chatturbhnj's case, a question arose
whether a member of the Mahar caste which was one of the Scheduled Castes
continued to be a member of the Mahar caste despite his conversion to the
tenets Mahanubhava Panth, a sect, the founder of which repudiated the caste
system and a multiplicity of Gods. Bose, J. after noticing the complexities
brought in the train of conversion, observed:
"Looked at from the secular point of
view, there are three factors which have to be considered: (1) the reactions of
the old body, (2) the intentions of the individual himself and (3) the rules of
the new order.
If the old order is tolerant of the new faith
and sees no reason to outcaste or ex-communicate the convert and the individual
himself desires and intends to retain his old social and political ties, the
conversion is only nominal for all practical purposes and when we have to
consider the legsl and political rights of the old body the views of the new
faith hardly matter. The new body is free to ostracise and outcaste the convert
from its fold if he does not adhere to its tenets, but it can hardly claim the
right to interfere in matters which concern the political rights of the old
body when neither the old body nor the convert is seeking either legal or
political favours from the new as opposed to purely spiritual advantage. On the
other hand, if the convert has shown by his conduct and dealings that his break
from the old order is so complete and final that he no longer regards himself
as a member of the old body and there is no reconversion and readmittance to
the old fold, it would be wrong to hold that he can nevertheless claim temporal
privileges and political advantages which are special to the old order."
Bose, J. found that whatever the views of the founder of the Mahanubhava sect
night have been about caste, it was evident that there had been no rigid
adherance to them among his followers in later years. They had either changed
their view or they had not been able to keep a tight enough control over
converts who choose to retain their old caste customs.
On a consideration of the evidence it was 981
found that the convert from the Mahar caste retained his caste even after
conversion.
These precedents, particularly those from
South India, clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed for
conversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier embraced another religion.
Unless the practice of the caste makes it necessary, expiatory rites need be
performed and, ordinarily, he regains his caste unless the community does not
accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that he regains his caste;
it may be more accurate to say that he never lost his caste in the first
instance when he embraced another religion. The practice of caste however
irrational it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may appear to
our moral and social science, is so deep-rooted in the Indian people that its
mark does not seem to disappear only conversion to a different religion. If it
disappears, only to reappear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not seem
to really disappear even after some generations after conversion. In Andhra
Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu, there are several thousands of Christian families
whose forefathers became Christians and who, though they profess the Christian
religion, nonetheless observe the practice of Caste. There are Christian
Reddies, Christian Kammas, Ceristian Nadars, Christian Adi-Andhras, Christian
Adi Dravidas and so on. The practice of their caste is so rigorous that there
are intermarriages with Hindus of the same caste but not with Christians of
another caste. Now, if such a Christian becomes a Hindu, surely he will revert
to his original caste, if he had lost it at all. In fact this process goes on
continuously in India and generation by generation lost sheep appear to return
to the casts-fold and are once again assimilated in that fold. This appears to
be particularly so in the case of members of the Scheduled Castes, who embrace
other religions in their quest for liberation, but return to their old religion
on finding that their disabilities have clung to them with great tenacity. We
do not think that any different principle will apply to the case of conversion
to Hinduism of a person whose fore-fathers 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.
Now, what are the facts of the present case? The
birth extract of the first respondent, Devarajan shows that his parents as
Hindu Adi Dravidas. Throughout his educational career, he was treated as a
Hindu student belonging to the Scheduled Castes and was 982 awarded
scholarships on that basis. The school records relating to his children also
show them as Hindu Adi Dravidas. On one occasion in the admission register of a
school, he was wrongly shown as Adi Dravida Christian, but it was corrected as
Adi Dravida as far back as in 1948. He never attended a church. On the other
hand, there is acceptable evidence to show that he was offering worship to
Hindu deities in Hindu temples and that his marriage was performed according to
Hindu custom and rites. Our attention was however, drawn to the finding of the
Tribunal that the sisters of the first respondent professed Christianity as
revealed by their service registers. Our attention was further invited to
certain evidence indicating that the parents of the first respondent had become
Christians and that the first respondent himself had been baptised when he was
seven months old. Even assuming that the parents and sisters of the first
respondent had become Christians and that the first respondent himself had been
baptised when he was seven months old, we see no difficulty in holding, on the
evidence in the case, that the first respondent had long since reverted to
Hinduism and to the Adi Dravida caste.
There is not a scrap of acceptable evidence
to show that he ever professed Christianity after he came of age. On the other
hand, every bit of evidence in the case shows that from his childhood, he was
always practising Hindism and was treated by everyone concerned as an Adi
Dravidh. There is then the outstanding circumstance that the voters of the
Rasipuram Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted
his candidature for the reserved seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice.
We have no doubt whatsoever that at all relevant times, he was a Hindu Adi
Dravida and professed no religion other than Hinduism.
The case was rightly decided by the Election
Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
H.S.K. Appeal dismissed.
Back
