New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 26) said that religious conversion done solely to avail benefits of the reservation policy was akin to a “fraud on the constitution” and “defeats the social ethos of the policy”.
The bench was hearing a plea challenging a Madras high court judgement that denied a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate to a Christian woman who claimed to have converted to Hinduism while applying for a government job.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan said that appellant, C. Selvarani, could not claim to be a Hindu while still practicing Christianity.
“In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity and actively practices the faith by attending church regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate for the purpose of employment. Such a dual claim made by her is untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism,” the bench said.
“Therefore, 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 added.
Selvarani claimed that she belonged to the Valluvan caste and was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, both of whom later practiced Hinduism, LiveLaw reported. Her father and brother held SC certificates, she said.
However, the court found that while her father was from a Scheduled Caste community, he had converted to Christianity. Both she and her brother were baptised in 1991 and 1989 respectively. It was also found that the appellant regularly attended church.
“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. As noticed above, the evidence on hand is also against the appellant,” the court said.
The court, finding insufficient evidence to support the appellant’s claims, dismissed her appeal and criticised the conversion to another religion solely for seeking benefits of a policy.
“One converts to a different religion, when [they are] genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in 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.”
