http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: S. ANBALAGAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1983

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

appear to  our moral  and social  sense, is so deeprooted 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. Through out 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]

JUDGMENT:      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

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. Through out 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. 983

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8