New Delhi.
The Supreme Court took strong exception to a woman, deemed by the State of Tamil Nadu to be a Christian convert, allegedly claiming to practice Hinduism for availing quota in job appointments for scheduled caste (SC) communities.
A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan made it clear that if the purpose of conversion/ reconversion is only to derive the benefit of reservation, the same cannot be allowed since it will defeat the objective of providing quota to the socially backward communities.
“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 … 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,” it stated.
The observation came while dismissing the appeal filed by one C Selvarani (appellant) against a January 2023 Madras High Court verdict.
Selvarani claimed that she belonged to the Valluvan caste of Hindu religion.
Based on that, she had claimed reservation benefits for a clerk job under the scheduled caste category.
But the State, after verifying the claim, rejected it.
The High Court refused to quash the appointment of a fellow candidate eventually selected for the job.
Selvarani then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the State government’s field verification clearly revealed that the marriage of Selvarani’s parents was registered under the Indian Christian Marriage Act.
Further, her baptism and court attendance were also documented and it showed that she was born as a Christian.
There was nothing on record to show that she had reconverted to Hinduism, the Court noted.
“In the present case, the appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any caste. 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,” the apex court said.
It emphasised that India is a secular country where every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of his or her choice.
Even so, dual claims on religion are not tenable and the appellant cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism, the Court made it clear.
Thus, it condemned Selvarani’s efforts to ‘claim to be a Hindu’ for availing reservation for government job.
“One converts to a different religion, when he/she is 21 genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity and actively practices the faith by attending church regularly,” the Court noted.
