# K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE

- **Citation:** [2015] 3 S.C.R. 243
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-02-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7065 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, V. Gopala Gowda
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-p-manu-v-chairman-scrutiny-committee-for-verification-of-community-certificate-30516
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

C
·Kera/a (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996
- Grant of caste certificate - Challenge to - Appellant born
to Christian parents, his grandfather embraced the 0
Christianity after leaving Hinduism and the appellant
converted to Hindu at the age of 24 -
Grant of caste
certificate of 'Hindu Pulaya' to which his ancestors
belonged - Scrutiny committee as also High Court holding
that he could not be treated as a Hindu - Sustainability E
of - Held: Not sustainable - For grant of scheduled caste
status, person must belong to the caste recognised by the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, there should
be reconversion to the original religion to which the
forefathers belonged; and should be accepted by the F
community -Appellant after reconversion had come within
the fold of the community, and thereby became a member
of the Scheduled Caste - Had the community expelled
him, the matter would have been different - Acceptance
is in continuum - Appellant's marriage to a Christian lady G
and non-production of any evidence for leading the life of
a Hindu would not make any difference - Appel/an( to be
243
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A ·reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating
to seniority and his caste and also be paid back wages
upto 75 per cent - Social status certificate.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Three things that need to be established
by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste
certificate are (i) there must be absolutely clear cut
proof that he belongs to the caste that has been
c . recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950; (ii) there has been reconversion to the
original religion to which the parents and earlier
generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be
evidence establishing the acceptance by the
D community. Each aspect is very significant, and if one
is not substantiated, the recognition would not be
possible. [Para 34] [278-D-E]
1.2 If a person who is born to Christian parents who
E had converted·to Christianity from the Scheduled Caste
Hindu·can avail the benefit of the caste certificate after
his embracing Hinduism subject to other qualifications,
there cannot be any soundness of logic that he cannot
avail the similar benefit because his grandparents were
F converted and he was born to the parents who were
Christians. They must have belonged to that caste and
after conversion the community has accepted. Thus, the
reasoning as ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee as
well as by the High Court is unacceptable. [Para 35]
G [278-F-G; 279-A]
H
•
The Principal Guntur Medical College, Guntur & Ors.
v. Y. Mohan Rao (1976) 3 SCC 411: 1976 (3) SCR 1046followed.
S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan and others (1984) 2 SCC
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
245
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT.
112: 1984 (1) SCR 973 - relied on.
A
1.3 The first principle in S. Swvigaradoss's case
that a court can look into the Notification by the
President and the act of the Parliament under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order B
(Amendment) Act, 1976 and the schedule appended
thereto for the limited purpose to find whether the
castes, races or tribes are parts or groups within the
caste, races or tribes, especially scheduled castes for
the purpose of Constitution, and it is because what has c
been included or excluded therein are conclusive, is
concurred with. [Para 42] [284-C-D]
S. Swvigaradoss v. Zonal Manager; F.C.I. (1996) 3 SCC
100: 1996 (1) SCR 995 - relied on.
D
1.4 As far as the second principle in S.
Swvigaradoss's case that a person born to Christian
parents, who initially belonged to the Scheduled Caste,
even after his reconversion cannot claim to be a
Scheduled Caste, it is essential to note that the E
authorities of larger Bench in Y. Mohan Rao case,
Kai/ash Sonkar case and S. Anbalagan case were not
brought to the notice of the Court. lrrefragably, the
second principle runs

## Text

_Characters 0–39,775 of 76,818. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39775 for what follows._

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 243
K.P. MANU
v.
CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE
(Civil Appeal No. 7065 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 26, 2015
A
8
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
C
·Kera/a (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996
- Grant of caste certificate - Challenge to - Appellant born
to Christian parents, his grandfather embraced the 0
Christianity after leaving Hinduism and the appellant
converted to Hindu at the age of 24 -
Grant of caste
certificate of 'Hindu Pulaya' to which his ancestors
belonged - Scrutiny committee as also High Court holding
that he could not be treated as a Hindu - Sustainability E
of - Held: Not sustainable - For grant of scheduled caste
status, person must belong to the caste recognised by the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, there should
be reconversion to the original religion to which the
forefathers belonged; and should be accepted by the F
community -Appellant after reconversion had come within
the fold of the community, and thereby became a member
of the Scheduled Caste - Had the community expelled
him, the matter would have been different - Acceptance
is in continuum - Appellant's marriage to a Christian lady G
and non-production of any evidence for leading the life of
a Hindu would not make any difference - Appel/an( to be
243
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A ·reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating
to seniority and his caste and also be paid back wages
upto 75 per cent - Social status certificate.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Three things that need to be established
by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste
certificate are (i) there must be absolutely clear cut
proof that he belongs to the caste that has been
c . recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950; (ii) there has been reconversion to the
original religion to which the parents and earlier
generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be
evidence establishing the acceptance by the
D community. Each aspect is very significant, and if one
is not substantiated, the recognition would not be
possible. [Para 34] [278-D-E]
1.2 If a person who is born to Christian parents who
E had converted·to Christianity from the Scheduled Caste
Hindu·can avail the benefit of the caste certificate after
his embracing Hinduism subject to other qualifications,
there cannot be any soundness of logic that he cannot
avail the similar benefit because his grandparents were
F converted and he was born to the parents who were
Christians. They must have belonged to that caste and
after conversion the community has accepted. Thus, the
reasoning as ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee as
well as by the High Court is unacceptable. [Para 35]
G [278-F-G; 279-A]
H
•
The Principal Guntur Medical College, Guntur & Ors.
v. Y. Mohan Rao (1976) 3 SCC 411: 1976 (3) SCR 1046followed.
S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan and others (1984) 2 SCC
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
245
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT.
112: 1984 (1) SCR 973 - relied on.
A
1.3 The first principle in S. Swvigaradoss's case
that a court can look into the Notification by the
President and the act of the Parliament under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order B
(Amendment) Act, 1976 and the schedule appended
thereto for the limited purpose to find whether the
castes, races or tribes are parts or groups within the
caste, races or tribes, especially scheduled castes for
the purpose of Constitution, and it is because what has c
been included or excluded therein are conclusive, is
concurred with. [Para 42] [284-C-D]
S. Swvigaradoss v. Zonal Manager; F.C.I. (1996) 3 SCC
100: 1996 (1) SCR 995 - relied on.
D
1.4 As far as the second principle in S.
Swvigaradoss's case that a person born to Christian
parents, who initially belonged to the Scheduled Caste,
even after his reconversion cannot claim to be a
Scheduled Caste, it is essential to note that the E
authorities of larger Bench in Y. Mohan Rao case,
Kai/ash Sonkar case and S. Anbalagan case were not
brought to the notice of the Court. lrrefragably, the
second principle runs contrary to the proposition laid F
down in the Constitution Bench in Y. Mohan Rao's case
and the decisions rendered by the three-Judge Bench.
When a binding precedent is not taken note of ,and the
judgment is rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of
the binding authority, the concept of per incuria comes G
into play. Tested on the said principles, the judgment
in S. Swvigaradoss case, as far as the second principle
is concerned, is per incuriam. [Para 42, 43, 44] [284-DG; 286-8]
S. Swvigaradoss v. Zonal Manager; F.C.I. (1996) 3 SCC H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 100: 1996 (1) SCR 995 - per incuriam.
1.5 As far as marriage is concerned, that should not
have been considered as the central and seminal facet
to deny the benefit. When the community has accepted
s and the community, despite the marriage, has not excommunicated or expelled, the same would not be a
disqualification. The appellant got married to a Christian
lady and that ·has been held against him. It has also
been opined that he could not produce any evidence
C to show that he has been accepted by the community
for leading the life of a Hindu. As far as the marriage
and leading of Hindu life are concerned, it really cannot
.be allowed to make any difference. The community
which is a recognised organisation by the State
D Government, has granted the certificate in categorical
terms in favour of the appellant. It is the community
which has the final say as far as acceptance is
concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion,
and takes him within its fold. Therefore, the appellant
E after reconversion had come within the fold of the
community and thereby became a member of the
scheduled ca~te. Had the community expelled him the
matter would have been different. The acceptance is in
F continuum. Ergo, the reasonings ascribed by the
Scrutiny Committee which have been concurred with
by the High Court are wholly unsustainable. The
judgment and order of the High Court, findings of the·
Scrutiny Committee and the orders passed by the Sta~
1
G Government and the second respondent are set aside,
The appellant to be reinstated in service forthwith with
all the benefits relating to seniority and his caste, and'
also be paid backwages upto 75% within eight weeks
from today. [Para 45, 46] (286-C-G]
H
The Principal Guntur Medical College, Guntur & Ors.
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
247
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT.
v.y Mohan RRao (1976) 3 SCC 411; Kodikunnil Suresh A
@J. Monian v. N.S. Saji Kumar & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 430:
2011 (7) SCR 640; C.M. Arumugam V. S. Rajgopal and
others (1976) 1 SCC 863: 1976 (3) SCR 82; Coopoosami
Chetty V. Duraisami Chetty ILR 33 Mad 57; Muthusami V.
Masilamani ILR 33 Mad 342; Mad l.J. 49; G. Michael V. S.
B
Venkateswaran AIR 1952 Mad. 474; Kai/ash Sonkar V.
Maya Devi (1984) 2 SCC 91: 1984 (2) SCR 176 ;
Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari ILR 9 Mad
342; Gurusami Nadar v. lrulappa Konar AIR 1934 Mad 630;
Rajagopal v. Armugam (1969) 1 SCR 254; Perumal Nadar C
v. Ponnuswami (1971) 1 SCR 49; Vermani v. Vermani AIR
1943 Lah 51: 205 IC 290; Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v.
Moreshwar Parashram 1954 SCR 817; Puneet Rai v.
D{nesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204: 2003 (2) Suppl. D
SCR 743; State of Kera/a & Anr. v. Chandramohanan (2004)
3 SCC 429: 2004 (1) SCR 1155; Nityanand Sharma v.
State of Bihar (1996) 3 SCC 576: 1996 (2) SCR 1; N.E.
Horo v. Jahanara Jaipal Singh (1972) 1 SCC 771: 1972 (3)
SCR 361 ; State of M.P. and Another v. Ram Kishna E
Balothia and Another (1995) 3 SCC 221: 1995 (1) SCR
897; B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa AIR 1965 SC
1269: 1965 SCR 316; Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh AIR
1965 SC 1557: 1~65 SCR 877: Srish Kumar Choudury
v. State of Tripura (1990) Supp.sec 220: 1990 SCR 576;
F
Kumari Madhuri P,atel v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal
Development (1994) 6 SCC 241: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR
50; A.R. Antu/ay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602:
1988
(1) Suppl. SCR 1; Union of/ndia and Others v. R.P. Singh
(2-014) 7 SCC 340 - referred to.
G
Social Impact of Conversion by Y. Antony Raj; The
Dalits Christians: A History by John C. B. Webster -
referred to.
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A
Case Law Reference
(1976) 3 sec 411
referred to
Para 6
2011 (7) SCR 640
referred to
Para 6
B
1976 (3) SCR 82
referred to
Para 9
ILR 33 Mad 57
referred to
Para 9
ILR 33 Mad 342
referred to
Para 9
c
AIR 1952 Mad. 474
referred to
Para 9
1984 (2) SCR 176
referred to
Para 14
ILR 9 Mad 342
referred to
Para 18
D
AIR 1934 Mad 630
referred to
Para 18
(1969) 1 SCR 254
referred to
Para 18
(1971) 1 SCR 49
referred to
Para 18
E
AIR 1943 Lah 51
referred to
Para 18
1954 SCR 817
referred to
Para 18
2003(2) Suppl. SCR 743 referred to
Para 19
F
2004 (1) SCR 1155
referred to
Para 20
1996 (2) SCR 1
referred to
Para 20
1972 (3) SCR 361
referred to
Para 20
G
1995 (1) SCR 897
referred to
Para 31
1976 (3) SCR 1046
followed.
Para 32, 33
1984 (1) SCR 973
relied on.
Para 33,35
H
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
249
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT.
1996 (1) SCR 995
relied on.
Para 42
1996 (1) SCR 995
per incuriam
Para 43
1965 SCR 316
referred to
Para 41
1965 SCR 877
referred to
Para 41 ·
1990 SCR 576
referred to
Para 41
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50 referred to
Para 41
1988 (1) Suppl.SCR 1
referred to
Para 43
(2014) 1 sec 340
referred to
Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
7065 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2006 in R.
P. No. 503 of 2006 and order dated 10.03.2006 in M. F. A.
No. 55 of 2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakularh.
A
B
c
D
Shekhar Naphade, Jayakrishnan, John Mathew for the E
Appellant.
Liz Mathew, M. F. Philip, Shriya Raj Chauhan, R.
Sathish, G. Prakash for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this appeal, by special leave,
the assail is to the judgment and order dated 1 Oth March,
2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of G
Kerala in M.F.A. No. 55 of 2006 wherein the High Court has
accepted the report of the Scrutiny Committee constituted
under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes)
Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (for
short "the Act") wherein the caste certificate granted in H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
A favour of K.P.' Manu, the appellant herein, had been
cancelled.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that
one Shri S. Sreekumar Menon invoked the jurisdiction of
B ~the Scrutiny Committee under Section 11 (3) of the Act
challenging the grant of caste certificate, namely, Hindu
Pulaya to the appellant on the ground that the said
certificate had been obtained by him on misrepresentation,
and that apart the concerned authority had issued the caste
C certificate in total transgression of law. The Committee
conducted an enquiry and eventually by its order dated 4th
February, 2006 had returned a finding that the appellant was
erroneously issued a caste certificate inasmuch as he was
'
not of Hindu ~>rigin and hence, could not have been
D conferred the benefit of the caste status. It is not in dispute
that the great grandfather of the appellant belonged to
Hindu Pulaya Community. His son Chothi embraced
Christianity and accepted a n.ew name, that is, Varghese
who married Mariam who originally belonged to Hindu
E ~ Ezhava community and later on converted to Christianity.
In the wedlock three sons, namely, Varghese, Yohannan
and Paulose were born. The father of the appellant,
Paulose, got married to Kunjamma who was a Christian.
F The appellant who was born on 03.01.1960 sometime in
the year 1984 at the age of 24 converted himse!f to Hindu
religion and changed his name to that of K.P. Manu. On
the basis of the conversion he applied for a caste certificate
to Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva Sangham. Be it stated,
G the appellant after conversion had obtained a certificate
from the concer.ned community on 5th February, 1984.
Eventually, the Tehsildar who was authorised to issue the
caste certificate had issued the necessary caste certificate.
I
H·
3. On the basis of the complaint made, the Scrutiny
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
251
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.)
Committee embarked upon an enquiry and recorded a A
finding holding, inter alia, that the appellant does not belong
to that caste. The report of the Scrutiny Committee appears
to have been influenced by two aspects, namely, that the
appellant was born to Christian parents, whose
grandparents had embraced Christianity and second, there ff
is no material brought on record to show that the appellant
after conversion has been following the traditions and
customs of the community. To arrive at the second
conclusion, emphasis has been laid on the fact that the
appellant after conversion, had married a Christian lady.
C
4. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Scrutiny
Committee, the State Government took action and directed
the employer of the appellant, respondent No. 2 herein, to
remove him from service and recover a sum of Rs.15 lakhs D
towards the salary paid to him. The said report of the
Committee and the order in sequitur having the base on
the report were the·subject matter of challenge before the
High Court in appeal.
E
5. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court
it 'is perceptible that it has affirmed the findings of the
Committee on the basis that the paternal as well as
maternal grandfather of the appellant belonged to Christian
community and professed Christian faith; that the parents F
of the appellant were born as Christians and they continued
to profess Christianity; that the appellant also was born as
a Christian; that there is no caste by name 'Pulaya convert';
. that neither the state government nor the revenue officials
have the power to effect any alteration in the caste name G
contrary to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
issued under the authority of the Constitution of India; that
the appellant cannot claim the caste status of Pulaya merely
on the ground that he had embraced Hinduism at the age H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A of 24; that his claim that he should be treated as, one
belonging to scheduled caste community has been rightly
rejected by the Committee after considering all the relevant
facts and the law on the subject; and that neither the
appellant nor his parents had enjoyed the caste status of
B Pulaya. On the aforesaid basis, the High Court opined that
by embracing Hinduism at the age of 24, the appellant who
was born to Christian parents and professed Christian faith
is not entitled to claim that he is "Hindu-Pulaya."
In the
ultimate result, the writ petition was dismissed.
c
6. Calling in question the legal propriety of the aforesaid
order, it is submitted by Mr. Naphade, learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the High Court has fallen into
serious error in its understanding of the ratio laid down by
D the Constitution Bench in the case of The Principal Guntur
Medical College, Guntur & Ors. v. Y. Mohan Rao 1,
inasmuch as it has ruled that benefit available to a
Scheduled Caste can only be made available to a person,
if his parents were converted to Christianity and he has
E been reconverted and further satisfies other conditions like
following th+ customs and traditions of the Caste after
reconversio1 but would not be applicable to a person if his
"grandparents had converted to Christianity. Learned senior
F counsel wo~ld submit that the finding of the Scrutiny
Committee dbes not deserve acceptation inasmuch as the
expert agenc~ which has been constituted under Section 9
of the Act to Inquire into certain aspects though has given
a categoricallfinding that the appellant had produced the
G requisite certi~cate, yet has fallaciously concluded that after
conversion h19 has not been following the traditions of
Christian relig
1jon, for he has entered into wedlock with a
Christian wom~n. Learned senior counsel has also placed
I
H 1 (1976) 3 sec 4!1
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
253
VERiFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.)
reliance on a two-Judge Bench decision in Kodikunnil A
Suresh @J. Monian v. N.S. Saji Kumar & Ors. 2.
7. Resisting the submissions canvassed by Mr.
Naphade, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. Liz
Mathew, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
B
that the reasoning of High Court cannot be faulted inasmuch
as the Constitution Bench does not lay down that a person
born as a Christian whose grandparents had embraced
Christianity can, on reconversion, come back to the stream
of. his/her original caste on acceptance by the community, C
and further the principle stated therein should not be
stretched to. cover that arena. That apart, submits she, the
onus is on the appellant to adduce proof in respect of the
fact that after conversion he has been following the Hindu
rites and customs that is meant for the caste and in the case D
at hand the said burden has not been discharged.
8. As we perceive, the controversy fundamentally has
three arenas, namely, (1) whether on conversion and at
what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after E
reconversion to the. Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the
benefit of his original caste; (ii) whether after his eligibility
is accepted and his original community on a collective basis
takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the benefit;
and (iii) that who should be the authority to opine that he F
has been following the traditions and customs of a particular
caste or not. We have enumerated the basic tests and in
course of our discussion, we shall delve into certain ancillary
issues regard being had to the area of analysis.
9. To appreciate the questions that we have formulated,
it is necessary to refer to the authorities in chronology. A
2 (2011) e sec 430
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A three-Judge Bench in C.M. Arumugam II. S. Rajgopal and
others3, while dealing with the concept of caste, referred
to the pronouncements in Coopoosami Chetty \I.
Duraisami Chetty', Muthusami II. Masilamani5 and G
Michael II. S. Venkateswaran6 and opined thus:
B
"It is no doybt true, and there we agree with the Madras
High Court in G Michael case that the general rule is
that conversion operates as an expulsion from the
caste, or, in other words, the convert ceases to have
C
any caste, because caste is predominantly a feature
of Hindu society and ordinarily a person who ceases
to be a Hindu would not be regarded by the other
members of the caste as belonging to their fold. /But
ultimately it must depend on the structure of the caste
D
and its rules and regulations whether a person would
cease to belong to the caste on his abjuring Hinduism.
If the structure of the caste is such that its members
must necessarily belong to Hindu religion. a member.
E
F
G
who ceases to be a Hindu. would go out of the caste.
because no non-Hindu {;an be in the caste according
to its rules and regulations. Where. on the other hand.
having regard to its structure. as it has evolved over
the years. a' caste may consist not only of persons
professing Hindu religion but also persons professing
some other religion as well. conversion from Hinduism
to that other religion may not involve loss of caste.
because even persons professihg such other religion
can be members of the C:aste. This might happen where
3 (1976) 1 sec 863
4 ILR 33 Mad 57
5 ILR 33 Mad 342; Mad l.J. 49
H
6 AIR 1952 Mad. 474
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
255
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.)
caste is based on economic or occupational A
characteristics and not on religious identity or the
cohesion of the caste as a social group is so strong
that conversion into another religion does not operate
to snap the bond between the convert and the social
group. This is indeed not an infrequent phenomenon B
in South India where. in some of the castes. even after
conversion to Christianity. a person is regarded as
continuing to belong to the 1;-aste. When an argument
was. advanced before the Madras High Court in G.
Michael case
C
"that there were several cases in which a member
of one of the lower castes who has been converted
to Christianity has continued not only to consider
himself as still being a member of the caste, but has D
also been considered so by other members of the
caste who had not been converted",
Rajamannar, C.J., who, it can safely be presumed, was
familiar with the customs and practices prevalent in E
South India, accepted the position "that instances can
be found in which in spite of conversion the caste
distinctions might continue", though he treated them as
exceptions to the general rule."
[Emphasis supplied]
10.
Thereafter, the Court referred to number of
authorities of various High Courts and ruled that it cannot
F
be laid down as an absolute rule uniformly applicable in all G
cases that whenever a member of caste is converted from
Hinduism to Christianity, he loses his membership of the
caste. It is true that ordinarily on conversion to Christianity,
he would cease to be a member of the caste, but that is
not an invariable rule, and it would depend on the structure H
256
SUPREME·COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A of the caste and its rules and regulations. The Court
referred to certain castes, particularly in South India, where
this consequence could not follow by conversion since such
castes comprise both Hindus and Christians. Eventually,
B
c
D
·E
F
G
H
the Court opined that:
"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 caste 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. It is the orthodox Hindu society still
dominated to a large extent, particularly in rural areas,
by medievalistic outlook and status-oriented approach
which attaches social and economic disabilities to a
'
person belonging to a scheduled caste and that is why
certain favoured treatment is given to him by the
Constitution. Once such a person ceases to be a Hindu
and becon:ies a Christian, the social and economic
. disabilities arising because of Hindu religion cease and
hence it is no longer necessary to give him protection
and for this reason he is deemed not to belong to a
scheduled caste. But when he is reconverted to
Hinduism, the social and economic disabilities once
again revive and become attached to him because
these are disabilities inflicted by Hinduism. 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
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
257
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
economic disabilities from which he suffered before he A
was converted to another religion. It is. therefore.
obvious that the object and purpose of the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order. 1950 would be advanced
rather than retarded by taking the view that on
reconversion to Hinduism. a person can once again B
become a member of the scheduled caste to which he
belonged prior to his conversion."
(Emphasis added)
c
11. The aforesaid pronouncement has to be understood
from constitutional and social perspective as the Court has
viewed that there is no rational principle why should a
person, who has embraced another religion should not be
able to come back to his caste, and further the object and o
purpose of.the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
would be advanced if, on reconversion, to his original
religion, he would become a member of his original caste
and not suffer from the same social and economic
disabilities.
E
12. Before the Constitution Bench, in Y. Mohan Rao
(supra), the question arose whether a person whose parents
belong to a scheduled caste before their conversion to
Christianity can, on conversion or re-conversion to F
Hinduism, be regarded as a member of the Scheduled
Caste so as to be eligible for the benefit of reservation of
seats for scheduled castes in the matter of admission to a
medical college. The parents of the respondent therein
originally professed Hindu religion and belonged to Madiga G
caste which is admittedly a caste deemed to be a scheduled
caste in the State of Andhra Pradesh as specified in Part I
of the schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950. The respondent was born after the conversion,
that is to say, he was born of Christian parents and he had H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A got himself converted to Hinduism on September 20, 1973
from Andhra Pradesh Arunchatiya Sangham stating that he
had renounced Christianity and embraced Hinduism after
going through Suddhi ceremony and he was thereafter
received back into Madiga caste of Hindu fold. On the
B strength of the certificate, he had applied for admission in
respect of the reserved seat to Guntur Medical College.
Initially he was provisionally selected for admission, but his
selection was cancelled as he was not Hindu by birth. On
a writ petition being filed, the High Court referred to the
C Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and opined
that a candidate, in order to be eligible for a seat reserved
for scheduled caste, need not belong to a scheduled caste
by birth and when such a stipulation is made by the
0 Government Notification, it has travelled beyond the 1950
order.
The view expressed by the learned Single Judge
in the writ petition was accepted by the Division Benc;:h. It
was contended by the State before the larger Bench that
when the respondent was converted to Hinduism, he did
E ' not automatically become a member of the Madiga caste,
but it was open to the members of the Madiga caste to
accept him within their fold and it was only if he was so
accepted, that he could have claimed to have become a
member of the said caste. The Constitution Bench referred
F to the three-Judge Bench in C.M. Arumugam (supra) and
G
H
posed the issue in the following manner:
"Now, before we proceed to consider this contention,
it is necessary to point out that there is no absolute rule
applicable in all cases that whenever a member of a
caste is converted from Hinduism to Christianity, he
loses his membership of the caste. This question has
been considered by this Court in C. M. Arumugam v.
S. Rajgopal and it has been pointed out there that
ordinarily it is true that on conversion to Christianity, a
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
259
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.)
person would cease to be a member of the caste to A
which he belongs, but that is not an invariable rule. It
would depend o,n the structure of the caste and its rules
and regulations. There are some castes, particularly
in South India, where this consequence does not follow
on conversion, since such castes comprise both Hindus B
and Christians. Whether Madiga is a caste which falls
within this category is a debatable question. The
contention of the respondent in his writ petition was that
there are both Hindus and Christians in Madiga caste
and even after conversion to Christianity, his parents C
continued to belong to Madiga caste and he was,
therefore, a member of Madiga caste right from the time
of his birth. It is not necessary for the purpose of the
present appeal to decide this question. We may 0
assume that, on conversion to Christianity, the parents
of the respondent lost their membership of Madiga
caste and that the respondent was, therefore, not a
Madiga by birth. The question is: could the respondent
become a member of Madiga caste on conversion to E
Hinduism? That is a question on which considerable
light is thrown by the decision of this Court in C.M.
Arumugam (supra)."
Thereafter, the Court accepting the principle stated in F
C.M. Arumugam (supra) proceeded to opine that the
reasoning given in the said judgment has to be accepted
and made applicable to i:I case where the parents of a
person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he
is born after their conversion and has subsequently G
embraced Hinduism. In addition to the conversion, he has
to be accepted by the members of the caste and is taken
as a member within 'its fold. In that context, the Court ruled
thus:
"The reasoning on which this decision proceeded is H
260
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 3 S.C.R.
equally applicable in a case where the parents of. a
person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and
he is born after their conversion and on his
subsequently embracing Hinduism, the members of the
caste to which the parents belonged prior to their
conversion accept him as a member within the fold. It
is for the members of the caste to decide whether or
not to admit a person within the caste. Since the caste
is a social combination of persons governed by its rules
and regulations. it may. if its rules and regulations so
provide. admit a new member just as it may expel an
existing member. The only requirement for admission
of a person as a member of the caste is the acceptance
of the person by the other members of the caste. for.
as pointed out by Kirshnaswami Ayyangar. J., in
Durgaprasada Rao v. Sudarsanaswam17, "in matters
affecting the well being or composition of a caste. the
caste itself is the supreme judge". (emphasis supplied).
It will, therefore, be seen that on conversion to
Hinduism, a person born of Christian converts would
not become a member of the caste to which his parents
belonged prior to their conversion to Christianity,
automatically or as a matter of cours13, but he would
become such member, if the other members of the
caste accept him as a member and admit him within
the fold."
(underlining is ours]
13. From the. aforesaid paragraph, it is plain as day ttiat
G if the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to
Christianity and he is born after the conversion and
embraces Hinduism and the members of the caste accept
H 7 AIR 1940 Mad 513: ILR 1940 Mad 653: (1940) 1 MLJ 800
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
261
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
him, he comes within the fold of the caste.
A
14. Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel for the
appellant would contend that the reasoning that has been
made applicable to the parents, there is no reason or
ju_stification for not applying the said principle to the B
grandparents. Learned counsel for the State, per contra,
would contend that the Constitution Bench has not laid
down any principle as regards the grandparents and the
same is with the avowed purpose as it cannot cover several
generations. In this regard, we may profitably refer to a C
three-Judge Bench decision in Kailash Sankar II. Maya
Devi'. In the said case, the Court posed the issue thus:
"The knotty and difficult, puzzling and intricate issue
with which we are faced is, to put it shortly, "what D
happens if a member of a scheduled caste or tribe
leaves his present fold (Hinduism) and embraces
Christianity or Islam or any other religion" -
does this
amount to a complete loss of the original caste to which
he belonged for ever and, if so, if he or his children E
choose to abjure the new religion and get reconverted
to the old religion after performing the necessary rites
and ceremonies, could the original caste revive? The
serious question posed here arose and has formed the
subject-matter of a.large catena of decisions starting
F
from the year 1861, traversing a period of about a
century and a half, and culminating in a decision of this
Court in the case of G.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal."
15. The Court, after referring to several decisions
including the decision in C.M. Arumugam (supra), has held
thus:
a (1984) 2 sec 91
G
H
262
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
"31. In our opinion, the main test should be a genuine
intention of.the reconvert to abjure his new religion and
completely dissociate himself from it. We inust hasten
to add here that this does not mean that the
reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a
cover to gain mundane worldly benefits so that the
reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a
particular purpose whereas the real intention may be
shrouded in mystery. The reconvert must exhibit a clear
and genuine intention to go back to his old fold and
adopt the customs and practices of the said fold without
any protest from members of his erstwhile caste. In
order to judge this factor, it is not necessary that there
should be a direct or conclusive proof of the expression
of the views of the community of the erstwhile caste
and it would be s_ufficient compliance of this condition
if no exception or protest is lodged by the community
members, in which case the caste would revive on the
reconversion' of the person to his old religion.
.· 32. Another aspect which one must not forget is that
when a child is born neither has he any religion nor is
he capable-of choosing one until he reaches the age
of discretion and acquires proper understanding of the
situation. Hence, the mere fact that the parents of a
child, who were Christians, would in ordinary course get
the usual baptism certificate and perform other
ceremonies without the child knowing what is being
done but after the child has grown up and becomes
fully mature and able to decide his future, he ought not
to be bound by what his parents may h_ave done.
Therefore,' in such cases, it is the intention of the
convertee which would determine the revival of the
caste. If by his clear and conclusive conduct the person
reconverts to his old faith and abjures the new religion
•
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
263
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
in unequivocal terms, his caste automatically revives." A
16. What is important for our purpose is paragraph 34
of the said decision, which is as follows:
"In our opinion, when a person is converted to 8
Christianity or some other religion the original caste
remains under eclipse and as soon as during his/her
lifetime the person is reconverted to the original religion
the eclipse disappears and the caste automatically
revives. Whether or not the revival of the caste depends c
on the will and discretion of the members of the
community of the caste is a question on which we
refrain from giving any opinion because in the instant
case there is overwhelming evidence to show that the
respondent was accepted by the community of her o
original Katia caste. Even so, if the fact of the
acceptance by the members of the community is made
a condition p_recedent to the revival of the caste, it
would lead to grave consequences and unnecessary
exploitation, sometimes motivated by political E
considerations. Of course, if apart from the oral views
of the community there is any recognised documentary
proof of a custom or code of conduct or rule of law
binding on a particular caste, .it may be necessary to
insist on the consent of the members of the community,
F
otherwise in normal circumstances the case would
revive by applying the principles of doctrine of eclipse.
We might pause here to add a rider to what we have
said i.e. whether it appears that the person reconverted
to the old religion had been converted to Christianity G
since several generations. it may be difficult to apply
the doctrine of eclipse to the revival of caste. However,
that question "does not arise here."
[Emphasis added] H
•
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A
17. Learned counsel for the State has laid immense
emphasis on the last part of the aforequoted paragraph
wherein the Court has observed that in a case where the
person reconverted to the old religion had been converted
to Christianity since several generations, it may be difficult
B to apply the do.ctrine of eclipse to the relevant caste. Mr.
Naphade, learned senior counsel would contend that the
three-Judge Bench has not referred to the Constitution
Bench decision in Y. Mohan Rao (supra) and had that been
adverted to, in all possibility, the Court could have held if it
C could travel to the immediate generation, there was no
warrant or justification not to take in its fold the
grandparents. His further submission is in the case at hand,
it is not a case of several generations, but only the
0 grandparents.
18.ln this context, a reference may be made to the
authority in S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan and others•.
In the said case, the Court dwelt upon the legal position in
regard to the caste, their status on conversion, or
E reconversion to Hinduism. After referring to various
authorities, namely, Administrator-General of Madras v.
Anandachari10 ,· Muthusami Muda/iar v. Masilamani
(supra), Gurusami Nadarv. lrulappa Konar", Rajagopal
F v. Armugam12 , Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswam1, 3 , Vermani
v. Vermanr•, Durgaprasada Rao (supra) and Chatturbhuj
9 (1984) 2 sec 112
G
10 ILR 9 Mad 342
11 1934 MLJ 389; AIR 1934 Mad 630
12 (1969) 1 SCR 254
13 (1971) 1 SCR 49
H. 14AIR 1943 Lah 51.: 205 IC 290
K.P. MANU v. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMM. FOR
265
VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERT. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram' 5, came to A
hold as follows:
"These precedents, particularly those from South India,
clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed
for reconversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier B
embraced another religion. Unle.ss the practice of the caste
makes it necessary, no expiatory rites n_eed 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 C
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 deep-rooted in the Indian people that its mark does not D
seem to disappear on conversion to a different religion . .!f
it disappears, 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 E
thousands of Christian families whose forefathers became
Christians and w.ho, though they profess the Christian
religion, nonetheless observe the practice of caste. There
are Christian Reddies, Christian Kammas, Christian Nadars,
F
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, G
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 caste-fold and are once again
15 1954 SCR 817
H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 guest for liberation. but
return to their old religion on finding that their disabilities
have clung to them with great tenacitv.