# S. RAJAGOPAL v. C. M. ARMLGAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 254
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-05-03
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-rajagopal-v-c-m-armlgam-ors-4391
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

S. RAJAGOPAL
v.
C. M. ARMLGAM & ORS.
May 3, 1968
lJ. C. SHAH Al'D Y. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Constitution (Sclreduled Castrs) Order 1950-Scheduled Caste llindu
becun1i11g a Christian-Reconverted to Jlindui.nn-Does not
beco111~ a
111en1ber of his previous caste unless accepted by coste.
·11ie appellant filed his nomination papers at the 1967 General Election
Grom a constituency rcscrvctl for members of the Scheduled
Ca.~tcs
mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduk-d Castes) Or~r 1950.
At the
election he defeated respondent No. 1 Y.'ho thereupon filed an election
petition under s. 81 of the Representation of tho People Act 1951. The
contention in the petirion , ... ,ts that the appellant \Vas not a Hindu but a
Christian and therefore not qualified to be a c.andidatc from a constituency
reserved for Scheduled Castes.
The High Court held on the fact> that
the appellant had become a Christian in 1949 and
his
later
rc-convt:r~ion to Hindui:-.n1 remained unproved.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (i) On the facts the High Court ri~htly came to the conclusion that the. appellant was converted lo Christianity in 1949.
On his
conversion the ;:1ppc\lant lost the caste to which he originally belonged
bcc.1u..,c the Christian religion
doc~ not rc..:ognisc c11stc. [264 F-G]
(ii) The evidence produced by the appellant established that at least
by 1967 when the General Election took place he was again 'professing'
th~ Hindu Religion so that he v•as not disqu~1lified under para 3 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. The word 'Profess' in that
para means an open declaration or pr;1cticc by a person of the religion in
question.
(~63 F.GJ
P1111jab Rao v. D. I'. Mesliram & Ors. [1965] 1 S.C.R.
849,
859,
applied.
Karwade V, Sluunbhakar, I.l .. R. 1959 nom. 229, rcfetred to.
(ii) Ho\\·ever mere reconversion to Hinduism docs not enable a person
to revert to his previous caste. t-:vcn if it be as~umed that a reconvert can
n:..,un1c membership of his previous c11stc, a point on ,,·hici1 0pinion is not
cxpres~cd. this can happen onlv if th~ caste as supreme judge of its interests accepts him again as a full member. Jn the present case the appellant
had not given evidence to ·satisfy th.is rcquircn1ent, and therefore his election fron1 a Schl'<luled Ca~tc constituency could not be upheld. 1268 D-E,
269 D-EJ
A
B
c
D
r:
F
G
(;. A1ichael v. Mr. S. V£·11kc.tes1varan, Additional Secretary to Go1•ern111ent P11hlic (Elections) /)epart1ncnt. A1adras, A.LR. 1952 Mad.
474,
IJ. Shran1su11dc.'r v. Shankar Dea Vrdafa11kar & Ors .. A.LR. 1960 Mys, 27.
Clia11i1rbl11r Virlui/d(Ar Ja.rani v. AJorcshwar l'arashra1n & Orr., [19541
S.C:.R. 81-f, Ad111i11istrc:tf)r-Ce11eral of Madras v. A11a11dachari & Ors ..
l.L.R. 9 ~f:id. 466, Gun1<;at11i 1\Jadar v. /rulappa Ko11ar (died) and Ors.,
67 f\1.L.J. Rep. 389, Airs. Agnl's Dororhy Vrnna11i v. A1r. Bryant Da\·id
ll
Vmna11i, A.J.R. 1943 Vol. 30 Lah. 51 and Goo11a D11rgaproscda
Rao
,;Jia.i: J'edda Babu and A nr. v. Gaona Sudarsanas11·an1i and 28 Ors .. 1.1. ... R.
1940 ~fad. 653, applied.
'
~ •
•
RAJAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
25:0
A
[General qu·.%tion whether membership of a caste can be acquired by
conversion or reconversion to Hinduisn1 left open.] [267 F~G]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CIVIL APPELLATE J URJSDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 1553 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1967
of the Mysore High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1967.
A. K. Sen, S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for the appellant.
Sarjoo Prasad, S. Balakrishnan and S. S. Khanduja, for
respondent No. 1.

## Text

_Characters 0–38,851 of 43,543. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38851 for what follows._

S. RAJAGOPAL
v.
C. M. ARMLGAM & ORS.
May 3, 1968
lJ. C. SHAH Al'D Y. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Constitution (Sclreduled Castrs) Order 1950-Scheduled Caste llindu
becun1i11g a Christian-Reconverted to Jlindui.nn-Does not
beco111~ a
111en1ber of his previous caste unless accepted by coste.
·11ie appellant filed his nomination papers at the 1967 General Election
Grom a constituency rcscrvctl for members of the Scheduled
Ca.~tcs
mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduk-d Castes) Or~r 1950.
At the
election he defeated respondent No. 1 Y.'ho thereupon filed an election
petition under s. 81 of the Representation of tho People Act 1951. The
contention in the petirion , ... ,ts that the appellant \Vas not a Hindu but a
Christian and therefore not qualified to be a c.andidatc from a constituency
reserved for Scheduled Castes.
The High Court held on the fact> that
the appellant had become a Christian in 1949 and
his
later
rc-convt:r~ion to Hindui:-.n1 remained unproved.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (i) On the facts the High Court ri~htly came to the conclusion that the. appellant was converted lo Christianity in 1949.
On his
conversion the ;:1ppc\lant lost the caste to which he originally belonged
bcc.1u..,c the Christian religion
doc~ not rc..:ognisc c11stc. [264 F-G]
(ii) The evidence produced by the appellant established that at least
by 1967 when the General Election took place he was again 'professing'
th~ Hindu Religion so that he v•as not disqu~1lified under para 3 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. The word 'Profess' in that
para means an open declaration or pr;1cticc by a person of the religion in
question.
(~63 F.GJ
P1111jab Rao v. D. I'. Mesliram & Ors. [1965] 1 S.C.R.
849,
859,
applied.
Karwade V, Sluunbhakar, I.l .. R. 1959 nom. 229, rcfetred to.
(ii) Ho\\·ever mere reconversion to Hinduism docs not enable a person
to revert to his previous caste. t-:vcn if it be as~umed that a reconvert can
n:..,un1c membership of his previous c11stc, a point on ,,·hici1 0pinion is not
cxpres~cd. this can happen onlv if th~ caste as supreme judge of its interests accepts him again as a full member. Jn the present case the appellant
had not given evidence to ·satisfy th.is rcquircn1ent, and therefore his election fron1 a Schl'<luled Ca~tc constituency could not be upheld. 1268 D-E,
269 D-EJ
A
B
c
D
r:
F
G
(;. A1ichael v. Mr. S. V£·11kc.tes1varan, Additional Secretary to Go1•ern111ent P11hlic (Elections) /)epart1ncnt. A1adras, A.LR. 1952 Mad.
474,
IJ. Shran1su11dc.'r v. Shankar Dea Vrdafa11kar & Ors .. A.LR. 1960 Mys, 27.
Clia11i1rbl11r Virlui/d(Ar Ja.rani v. AJorcshwar l'arashra1n & Orr., [19541
S.C:.R. 81-f, Ad111i11istrc:tf)r-Ce11eral of Madras v. A11a11dachari & Ors ..
l.L.R. 9 ~f:id. 466, Gun1<;at11i 1\Jadar v. /rulappa Ko11ar (died) and Ors.,
67 f\1.L.J. Rep. 389, Airs. Agnl's Dororhy Vrnna11i v. A1r. Bryant Da\·id
ll
Vmna11i, A.J.R. 1943 Vol. 30 Lah. 51 and Goo11a D11rgaproscda
Rao
,;Jia.i: J'edda Babu and A nr. v. Gaona Sudarsanas11·an1i and 28 Ors .. 1.1. ... R.
1940 ~fad. 653, applied.
'
~ •
•
RAJAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
25:0
A
[General qu·.%tion whether membership of a caste can be acquired by
conversion or reconversion to Hinduisn1 left open.] [267 F~G]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CIVIL APPELLATE J URJSDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 1553 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1967
of the Mysore High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1967.
A. K. Sen, S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for the appellant.
Sarjoo Prasad, S. Balakrishnan and S. S. Khanduja, for
respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bhargava, J. The appellant, S. Rajagopal, the first respon·
dent C. M. Annugam, and the other three respondents all flled
nominations for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State
of Mysore in the last General Elections held in 1967. The nomination papers were scrutinised on 21st January, 1967, when res·
pondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as
"the respondent")
raised an objection against the nomination of the appellant on
the ground that the nominations were in respect of a seat reserved
for a member of a Scheduled Caste, and the appellant was not
an Adi Dravida Hindu, but an Indian Christian, so that he was
disqualified to stand as a candidate for this reserved seat.
The
Returning Officer rejected the objection and accepted the nomina·
tion paper of the appellant. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 withdrew
their candidature, so that, when actual election took place, the
two contesting candidates were the appellant and the respondent.
The Constituency concerned was Kolar Gold Fields and polling
in that constituency took place on 15th February, 1967.
The
appellant was declared as the successful candidate on the ground
that he received a larger number of votes than the respondent.
The respondent then filed an election petition under section 81
of the Representation of the Peopl.~ Act, 1951, challenging the
validity of the election of the appellant on the same ground that
he had taken before the Returning Officer, viz., that the appellant
was not qualified to be a candidate to fill the seat reserved for
a member of the Scheduled Caste from the Kolar Gold Fields
Constituency. The respondent admitted that the appellant was
originally born as an Adi Dravida Hindu, but it was pleaded that
he got himself converted as a Christian some time in the year
J 949, shortly before he obtained admission in Woorhees High
School at Vellore and to the Woorhees Christian Hostel attached
to that School.
The respondent's case was thai, thereafter, the
appellant continued to be a Christian and, consequently, he could
not be held to be a member of the Scheduled Caste for his candidature for the reserved scat under the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, I 950.
The appellant resisted this plea taken in
SUl'RDIE COURT REPORTS
[1969] I S.C.R.
the election petition on various grounds, but we are only
cuncerncc.1 1Il this appeal with two ot those grounds wh1cu tormed <lle
subject-mailer ot issues 1 and 3 framed by the High 1.,uun 01
Mysore at ihe trial of the election pe1it1on.
Those issues are a,
follows:-
"'( 1) Does the petitioner prove that on the dale of
election the responc.lenl l"o_ 1 was an lndian Chns1ian
(Protestant) by conversion and not a member of the
Scheduled Casie (Adi Dravida), professing Christian
Religion and therefore, not qualified to stand for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly as a candidate
for the sea'l reserved for Scheduled Castes from the Ko1ar
Gold Fields Constituency and his election should
be
declared void under section 100 ( l) (a) of the Representation of People Ace, l 951 '!
( 3) Even if it is true chat respondent No.
got
himself converted to Christianity, does the respondent
prove the facts and the circumstances set out in para
11 of the
written statement and do they constilll'te in
fact and in law conversion back to Hindu religion as
alleged; and is it enough in law to give him the benefit
of ihe Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 ?"
The High Court took the evidence, both documentary and oral,
adduced by the parties on these issues and then decided both the
issues against the appellant and in favour of the respondeni. That
Court, therefore, held that the election of the appellant was void.
because he was not qualified to be a candidate for the seat reserved
A
B
c
D
E
for a member of the Scheduled Caste and, consequently, set aside
F
the election of the appellant.
The appellant has now come up
in appeal against that judgment under section I l 6A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was made
by the President in exercise of his powers conferred by clause (I)
of Article 341 of the Cons-ticution which is as follows :-
G
"341. (I) The President may with respect to any
State or Union territory, and where it is a Stace. after
consulta-cion with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or
oroups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the
H
purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled
Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as
the case may be."
..
1-
.-
•
-
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJAGOPAL V. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
257
The relevant provisions of this Order, with which we are concerned, are contained in paragraphs 2 ·and 3 and item 1 ( 2) of Part
VIII of the Schedule to the Order, which are as follows :-
"2. Subject to the provisions of this
Order,
the
cas•tes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within,
castes, or tribes, specified in Parts I to XIII of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the States to
which those Parts respeotively relate, be deemed to be
Scheduled Castes
so far as regards members thereof
resident in the localities specified in relation to them in
those Parts of that Schedule.
3. NotwHhstanding anythin_g contained in paragraph
2, no person who professes a religion different from the
Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a
member of a Scheduled Caste.
THE SCHEDULE
PART VIII-Mysore
1. Throughout the State except Coorg, Belgaum,
Bijapur, Dharwar, Kanara, South Kanara, Gulbarga,
Raichur and Bidar districts and Kollegal taluk of
Mysore district :-
1.
2. Adi Dravida.
3.
"
These provisions make it quite clear that a person, who is an Adi
Dravida, is qualified to be a candidate for the seat reserved for
a member of the Scheduled Caste from this Kolar Gold Fields ·
Con~tituency in the State of Mysore, provided he satisfies
the
additional requirement of paragraph 3 of the Order of not professing a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion at
the time when his qualification 10 be a candidate has to be determined.
In 1he present case, therefore, the validity of the candidature of the appellant depended on the question whether,
in
January and February, 1967, when he was nominated as a candidate for the reserved seat and was declared elected, he was or was
not a member of the Adi Dravida Caste and professing a religion
different from 1he Hindu or the Sikh religion.
The case of the
respondent, as mentioned above, was that the appellant had become a Christian in 1949 and was still professing the Christian
religion at the time of the election in 1967.
This plea was met
by the appellant by pleading that he never became a convert to
Christianity and that, in any case, even if it be held 1hat he had
0m;e become a Christian in the y11ar 1949, he was professing th<;
St:PRDIE COt:RT REPORTS
f 19691 I S.C R
Hindu religion at the relevant time in the yc;1r J 967.
These arc
the picas that arc reflected in ·issues l and :i reproduced above.
The High Court. in deciding the first issue in favour of the
respondent and against the appellant. relied primarily
on
the
evidence Clf P.W. 9. I. J. Rajamanikyam .. wlw. in the year 1949.
was employed as an Assistant Master in \VClc1rhees High School
at Vellorc and was the Asstt. Mana~er of the \Voorhees Christian
Hostel.
P.W. 9 stated that an application. Ext. P. 11, for admission of the appellant as an inmate of the
\Voorhees
Christian
Hostel was made by C. A. Joseph who was t hc Manager of the
Hostel.
This Hostel was meant for the residence exclusively of
persons belonging lo the Christian faith.
In
the
application.
Ext. P. 11, the appellant was shown as an Indian Christian and
not as Adi Dravida or Hindu.
At that time, it became necessary
to ascertain whether the appellant was in fact a Christian.
According to him. C. A. Joseph ascertained all the particulars of the
appellant and it was on that basis that he showed the appellant
in the application as an Indian Christian.
C. A. Joseph, who
was the Manager. interviewed the appc1\ant
and
then
asked
P.W. 9 to admit him 1o the Hostel.
P.W. 9 further stated that.
in that connection, the apnellant showed to him his baptismal
certificate which indicated that he had heen baptized as a Christian at Ponnai Anicut Festival which is he'd hv the Christians in
the month of March or April every vear.
On being cross-examin- ·
ed he indicated that the certificate had hcen issued hv the Presbyter of Y chamur Church situated in North Arcot District. 15
miles from Vcllore.
He also deposed that. during his stay in the
Hostel. the appellant was ob;crviM the Christian Religion and
was taking kindly towards the religious activities of the hostel.
though it appeared that, being a recent convert to Christianitv
he was not quite conversant with the forms of worship or service.
P.W. 9 was himself supervisin!! the religious observances bv th~
inmates of the hostel.
This evidence given hv P.W. 9 is further
corroborated hy the document, Ext. P. 12. which is the register
of admissions and withdrawals of the Woorhees High School. In
that admission register, against item No. 14-Rcligion of the student pertainin!! to the appellant the entry
is Indian
Christian.
Thus. the oral evidence given hy P .W. 9 showin!! that the appellant was a Christian when he was admitted to the Woorhees High
School and the Woorhees Christian Hostel is corroborated bv the
entrv made in Ext. P.-11 by C. A. Joseph as j!Uardian of the
appellant and the entry in the Register of Admissions and Withdrawals of the Woorhees High School Ext. P. 12.
On this corroboration. the High Court believed the statement of this wi1ness
that the appellant had shown to him his Baptismal Ccrtifica~e
also.
The High Court noted the fact that there was no reason
at all for this witness to μive false evidence against the appellant;
•
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJAGOPAL \'. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
259
and the only suggestion made that he bore a grievance to the
appellant, a,s the appellant refused to make a recommendation for
him for a particular appointment, has no1 been established and
has no basis. The High Court also took notice of various other piece
of evidence which corroborated the statement given by P.W. 9.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance
before us any cogent reason for disagreeing with this assessment
of the evidence of this witness by the learned Judge of the High
Court who had
the benefit of watching this witness when his
evidence was actually recorded before him.
The main argument for challenging the evidence of this witness on behalf of the appellant was that the respondent, in adducing evidence before the High Court to prove the conversion of the
appellant to Christianity, did not summon the Baptismal Re~ister
of the Church which would have been the best evidence available
for this purpose.
This argument was considered and rejected
by the High Court and we agree with the view taken by that
Court.
There was no clear evidence 1hat every
Church was
maintaining a baptismal register.
It was . only
in his
crossexamination that it was elicited from P. W. 9 that the baptismal
certificate shown to him by the appellant had been issued by the
Presbyster of Yehamur Church. The respondent, when he came
in the witness-box stated that he had not been informed of this
fact eat!ier by P.W. 9 so that he was not in a position to summon
the baptismal register of that Church. No doubt, the appellant
examined some witnesses of whom particular mention made bv
made of R.W. 9, Rev. Ashirvadam, who stated that, as a general
practice, in all Churches several registers are maintained and one
of these registers is the Baptismal Register.
Even if this evidence
be accepted at its full value, the only conclusion to be drawn from
it is that a baptismal register must have been maintained by the
Presbyter of Yehamur Church; but there is no evidence at all to
indicate that in such a register entries were used to be made even
of baptisms which took place not in the Church itself, but at a
fair like the Ponnai Anicut Festival. It is significant that even
the appellant himself, who had a better opportunity of summoning the baptismal register of Yehamur Church than the respondent, because the fact that the baptismal certificate had been
issued bv the Presbyter of that Church was disclosed by P .W. 9
onlv in his cross-examination on 27th July, 1967 during the trial
of the election petition and not earlier, did not care to have that
register summoned.
A request was put forward before us during
the hearing of this appeal to direct the production of that register. but we do no1 think that there is any justification under 0. 41
r. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning it at this
stage, particularly because, even if that register is brought, a Jot
of oral evidence would have to be recorded in order to have the
register properly proved and to give an ~pportunity to the party,
260
SUJ>RnlE COURT REPORTS
[I 969] J S.C.R
against whom inferences follow from it. to meet those inferences.
In the circumslanccs. we have not en.tcrtaineJ the request for
summoning of that register at this stage.
This is all the more so
as we find that there is no evidence to show that an cntrv relaling
to the baptism of the appellant must necessarily find a· place i~
the register in view of lhc fact that the appellant was baptized al
the Ponnai Anicut Festival and not in the Church. Consequently.
the non-summoning of that register by the respondent does noc
detract from the value to be attached to the statement of P.W. 9.
This evidence finds support from other documentary and O'al
evidence which has been relied upon by the High Court.
P.W.
10, S. A. Thomas. is a P.W.D. Contractor and has stated that.
in the time of his father, who was also working as a Contractor.
lhe appellant took service with his father.
At ·that time also. the
appellant was employed as a Christian and his service card was
prepared showing him as a Christian.
Then. there is evidence
that, subsequently, the appellant entered Government service and
even there in the service cards he was shown
as
a Christian.
Some witnesses have come to prove
that the appellant actuallv
attended Church for prayers after his conversion in 1949. Evidence was also given to show that l;he appellant worked as the
organizer of a body known as the Kavinjar Nataka Sabha where
his name
was
shown
as Victor Rajagopal.
indicating that
he had adopted a personal name after conversion as a Christian
which is not adopted by Hindus.
We do not think
that
it
is
necessary for us to discuss thal evidence in detail.
We are inclined to agree with the High Court that all this oral and documentarv evidence provides verv strong corroboration of the statement of the principal witness P.W. 9 and establishes the fact that
the appellant had been converted to Christianity in 1949 before
he joined the Woorhees High School.
We were also taken through the evidence of the respondent's
witnesses. some of whom tried to prove that the appellant had
never attended anv Christian Church. The orincioal witness. on
whose evidence reliance was placed in this behalf. was R.W. 9.
the Presbvter of the Maskam Church.
It was elicited from him
that lhe appellant was not entered in the rc.iristcr of members of
the congregation of the Church: hut the cross-examination of !he
witness shows that it is not necessarv thal even· one attcndmo.
the Church for prayers must also be a member of the congregation and his nmne must find a place in that register.
The evidence
of some other wrtnesses. who have come to state that thev never
saw the appellant going for pravers to the Church. can hardlv
carrv any wei"ht, because it is not necessarv that thev should have
been present 7'n those occasions when
the
aoneltant
actu~llv
attended the Church services.
The learned Jud~c of the H1eh
Court. who had the benefit of watchin.ir the dernc:mour of all the
A
n
c
D
E
F
(,
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
261
witnesses examined before him, did not consider the evidence of
these witnesses sufficient to rebut the proof given on behalf of the
respondent.
Reference was also made by learned counsel to some documentary evidence before us, but none of those documents establishes that the appellant was not converted to Christianity in 1949.
Some of these documents are of the period prior to 1949 and
consist of papers relating to schools attended by the appellan'
in which the appellant is shown as an Adi Dravida Hindu. They
are consistent even wrth the case of the respondent,
because
the plea put forward was that the appellant was converted to
Christianity in 1949 and that he was a Hindu earlier. Particular
reliance was placed on a transfer certificate issued by the
K.G.F. High School which mentions the date of issue of the
Transfer Certificate as 10th June, 1949. In that certificate there
is an entry that the appellant was studying free, because he was
Adi Dravida Hindu. It was urged that this document would
indicate that right up to 10th June, 1949, the appellant was a
Hindu.
This is not correct. The certificate mentions the actual
date of leaving the school as 1st March, 1949, and the capacity
in which the appellant was allowed to study free can only refer
to the period ending on that date. The case set up by the respondent and accepted by the Ligh Court: is that the appellant was
converted to Christianity at the Ponnai Anicut Festival which took
place in the end of March or beginning of April, 1949, so that
this entry showing the appellant as a Hindu up to 1st March, 1949
does not militate against the finding that he was converted to
Christianity at that Festival.
The remaining documents relied upon by the appellant relate
to much later period and they also cannot, therefore, show that
the appellant was not converted to Christianity in the vear 1949.
The earliest of these documents is of the year 1956. That document is the entry in the birth register in respect of the first child
born to the appelJant's wife.
Then, there are entries relating to
birth of other children in 1959 and 1961. -rn these documents
also. however. the caste or the religion of the appellant is not
mentioned. The community of the appellant's wife alone is shown
as Adi Dravida.
In this case, it is not disputed that when the
appellant married in 1955. his wife was a Hindu, so that these
entries showing her as Adi Dravid\l cannot prove that the appellant was a Hindu and not a Christian. There are subsequent entries in school records where the appellant showed the caste of
his children as Adi Dravida Hindus.
These documents are of a
very much later period and relate to a time when the aooellant
hacl alreadv heen elected from ~ reservecl seM as a member of the
Scheduled Caste in the election of 1962.
It, however. appears
that, before this election in 1962, the appellant decided to show
262
Sl.PRF~11: COL'R r REPORTS
[ 1969) I s.C.k.
himself as a Hmdu. and, consequently, he maJc applicalions an,1
got entries altered in his service cards so as to show him as Adi
Dravida Hindu instead of a Christian.
It was thereafter that he
contested the election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly in 1962
from the reserved constitucncv claiming himself to be a member
of a Scheduled Caste. This e;·idencc relating to this period cannot again he held to disprove the conversion of the appe!lam to
Christianity in the year 1949 which has been amply established
by the evidence given hy the respondent discussed above.
At
best. it can onlv show th:it by this time the appellant started
putting himself forward as a Hindu.
Consequently. we aflirm
the finding of the High Court that the appellant was converted to
Christianitv in the year 1949, so that he lost the capacity of an
/\di DraviJa in which capacitv alone he could have been held to
he a member of a Scheduled C1>tc under the Constitution (Scheduled Cast,·s) Order. l 950.
This brings us to the second qucs·tion whether the appcllan<.
at the time of election in the year 1967, was professing Hindu
religion as alleged by him .rnd whether on that accOll!ll he could
claim that he was a member of a Scheduled Caste, having again
become an Adi Dravida Hindu. We arc inclined to accep1 the evidence given on behalf of the appellant that. though he had been
converted to Christianity in l 949. he did later on profess tho•
Hindu religion.
The circumstances which established this fa~
arc:
(i) that he married a Hindu /\di Dravida woman in the
year 1955;
(ii) that against the entries of the children in birth registers of' the Municipality. the caste of the mother was
shown as Adi Dravida Hindu;
(iii) that his children were brought up as Hindus;
(iv) that, when his children were admi!tcd in school. they
were shown as Hindus in the school records:
(v) that in 1961. the appellant made an application for
correction of his service cards and had the entry o[
his religion <rs Christianity altered. so that he was
subsequently shown as Adi Dravida Hindu in those
cards;
(vi) thal, in 1962. in the j!Cncral elections. he stood as .a
candidate from a Reserved Scheduled Caste Constituency; and
(vii) that he again stood as a candidate in
this .general
election of 1967 from the same Reserved Scheduled
Caste Consti1ucncy.
A
B
1
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, !.)
263
We do not consider it necessary to discuss in detail the evidence which has been given on behalf of the appellant to prove
all these facts enumerated above. Almost all of them are supported by documentary evidence.
The only
question that needs
consideration is whether these facts establish tha1, at the time of
the general election in 1967, the appellant was professing Hindu
religion.
The word "profess'' used in paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Oeder, 1950 came up for interpretation by this Court in Punjab Rao v. D. P. Meshmm & Others(1).
After referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Karwade v. Shambhakar(') and the meaning of the word "profess" given in Webster's New Wl:lrld Dictionary,
and
Shorter
Oxford Dictionary, the Court held :-
"It seems to us that the meaning "to declare one's
belief in : as to profess Christ" is one which we have
to bear in mind while construing the aforesaid order,
because it is this which bears upon religious belief and
consequently also upon a change in
religious belief.
It would thus follow that a declaration of one's belief
must necessarily mean a declaration in such a way that
it would be known to those whom it may interest.
Therefore, if a public declaration is made by a person
that he has ceased to belong to his old religion and has
accepted another religion he will be taken as professing
the other religion.
In the face of such an open declaration it would be idle to enauire further as to whether
the conversion to another religion was efficacious. The
word
"profess" in the Presidential Order appears to
have been used in the sense of an open declaration or
practice by a person of the Hindu
(or the Sikh)
religion."
In our opinion, if this test is applied to the present case, it
must be held that at least by the year 1967, when the present
election in question took place, the appellant had started professing the Hindu religion.
He had openly married a Hindu wife.
Even though the marriage was not celebrated according to the
strict Hindu rites prevalent amongst Adi Dravidas, the marriage
was not in Christian form and is alleged to have been in some
reformed Hindu manner.
Thereafter, the appellant in
1961
took the step of having his service cards corrected so as fo show
him as an Adi Dravida Hindu instead of a Christian. This was
followed by his candidature as a member of the Adi Dravida
Hindu Caste in the general elections in 1962; and, subsequently,
he gave out the caste of his children as Adi Dravida Hindus.
These various steps taken by the appellant clearly amount to a
(I) [1965] I S.C,R. 849 at p. 859.
(2) l.L.R.1959 Bom. 229.-
264
SlJPRB!F. COURT REPORTS
fl969J I SCR.
public declaration of his professing the Hindu faith.
The first
step of the marriage cannot. of course, by itself be held to be a
sufficient public declaration that the appellant believed in Hindu
religion; hu·t the subsequent correction of entries in scrvic~ cards
and his publicly standing as a candidate from the reserved Scl1cduled Caste Constituency representing himself as an Adi Dravida
Hindu taken together with the later act of showing his children
as Adi Dravida Hindus in the school records mus1 he held to he
a complete public declaration by the appellant that he was by this
time profcssin!! Hindu reli)!ion.
Finally. in the .general elections
of 1967 also, the appellant, hy contesting the se<it reserved for a
member of a Scheduled Caste tm the basis that he was an Adi
Dravida Hindu. a~ain purported to make a public declaration of
his faith in Hinduism.
In these circumstances. we hold that, at
the relevant time in 1967, the appellant was profcssin~ Hindu
religion. so that paragraph 3 of the
Constitution
(Scheduled
Castes) Order. l 950 did not apply to him.
This, however, does not finallv scitle the matter in favour of
the appellant. because. even if it he held that para.graph 3 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order. 1950 did not disqualify
the appellant. it is nccessarv for 1he apoellant to show that he
satisfied all the requirements ··of para.graph 2 of that Order. Under
para.graph 2. a person to he cli1!ihle for a reserved seat must he
a member of a caste specified b\; tl1e President in the Order. The
appellant claims that. when he started profe"in~ Hindu rclieion
again, he reverted to his original caste of birth, vi?., Adi Dravida
Hindu.
Tt is the justification of this claim that is conte-<ted on
behalf of the resnondent. Tt has been urged that. when the apoclJant became a Christian. he ceased to he a member of the Ari;
Dravida caste as specified in the Presidential Order and. on again
professing the Hindu rcli.gion. the aonetlant cannot claim that he
aU'tomaticaily reverted to a membership of that caste.
We a~rce with the Hirh Court that. when the appellant embracer! Christianitv in 1949. he Jost the mcmbershio of the Adi
Dravi~a Hindu caste. Th., Christian relieion docs not recoeni«·
anv caste classifications. i\IJ Christions arc treated as equals encl
there is no distinction between one Christian an<l another of fh'
!voe ihat is recognised between members of different castes brloneine to Hindu relioion.
In fact. cas1c s\'Stcm nrcvails onlv
amongst Hindus or oo<sibh· in some rcli~ions closelv allied to th
0
Hindu relieion like Sikhism.
Christianitv is nrevalc.nt not onlv
in Tndia. but almost all over the world and nowhere docs Christianitv recn!!nise c~~fe tfi\'i<don.
Th" tenet' nf C'hric:ti~nitv n1ilit:'ltc
ae-:linc.;t ncrsonc.;
nrnfcc.;c.;jn~! Chric.;ti:in fnith h<'.inO' <livirlert nr <liscriminaten on the hasis of anv such classification as the caste
system.
It must, therefore, be held that, when the appellant )!<l'.
A
B
c
D
E
F
r,
H
. ,
A
B
RA.JAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
26 5
converted to Christianity in 1949, he ceased to belong to the Adi
Dradiva caste.
ln this connection, we may take notice of a decision of the
Madras High Court in G. Michael v. Mr. S. Venkateswaran, Additional Secretary to Government Public (Elections) Department,
Madras('), where that Court held :-
"Christianity and Islam are religions prevalent not
only in India but also in other countries in the world.
We know that in other countries these religions do not
recognise a system of castes as an integral part of !heir
creed or tenets."
C
Attention of that Court was drawn to the fact 'that there were
several cases in which a member of one of the lower castes, who
had been converted to Christianity, had continued not only to
consider himself as still being a member of the caste, but had
also been considered so by other members of the caste who had
not been converted.
Dealing with this aspeot, the Court held :-
D
E
F
G
H
"This is somewhat analogous to
cases in which
even after conversion certain families and groups continue to be governed by the Jaw by which they were
governed before they became converts.
But !hese are
all cases of exception and the general rule is conversion
operates as an expulsion from the caste; in other words,
a convert ceases to have any caste."
In the present case, therefore, we agree with the finding of the
High Court that the appellant,
on conversion to
Christianity,
ceased to belong to the Adi Dravida caste and, consequently, the
burden lay on the appellant to establish that, on his reverting to
the Hindu religion by professing it again, he also became once
again a member of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste.
Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellant on a
decision of the Mysore High Court in B. Shyamsunder v. Bhaskar
Deo Vedalankar and Others(2) to urge that on charge of religious belief, a person does not automatically cease to be a member of the caste in which he was born.
For !he same principle,
reference was also made to a decision of this Court in Chatturbhuj
Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and Others(3 ). Neither
of these two cases, in our opinion, is applicable to the present
case, because, in bath those cases, though the persons concerned
had started profossing religious beliefs different from
those of
orthodox Hindus, they still continued to be Hindus. The Mysore
High Court in its decision took notice of this fact by holding :
(1) A.LR. 1952 Mad. 474.
(2) A.J.R. 1960 Mysore 27.
(3) [1954] S.C.R. 817.
266
SCl'REMl COURT REPORTS
[l%9J I S.CR.
"It is, therefore, plain that
Arya
Samaj,
unlike
A
Christianity or Islam, is not a new religion enurcly distinct from Hinduism and that the mere profession of
Arya Samajism by a person docs not make him cease
to be a Hindu and cannot have the effect of excluding
him from Hinduism although he was born in ii. It is
equally clear that such a person n.ever becomes sepa11
rated from the reli~ious communion in which he was
born.
The wntcniion urged to the contrary by Mr.
Reddy must, therefore, fail."
In the case of C/1it111rbhuj Vitlza/das ll1,-011i(' ), this Court was
dealing with the stJtus of a person who belonged to the Mahar
caste, which was one of the Scheduled Castes under the Presidential Order, and the que;·tion arose whether, on his conversion to
the tenets of the Mahanubhava l'anth, he ceased to belong to that
Scheduled Caste.
It w~1s hdd that, whatever the views of the
founder of this sect may have been about caste, it was evident
that there had been no rigid adherence
to
them
among
his
followers in later years. ' The Court, therefore, did not detem1inc
whether the Mahanubhava tenets encouraged
a repudiation
of
caste only as a desirable ideal or make it a fundamental of the
faith, because it was evident
that
prcsent•day
Mahanubhavas
admrtted to their fold persons who elected to retain their old caste
customs.
It was on this basis that the Court held that it was easy
for the old caste to rcg<1rd the converts as one
of ·themselves
despite the conversion which for all practical purposes was only
ideological and involved no change of status.
The final conclusion was expressed in the following words :-
"On this evidence, and after considering the historical nlU'terial placed before us, we conclude that conversion to this sect imports little beyond an intellectual
acceptance of certain ideological tenets and docs not ,
alter the convcrt's caste status, at any rate, so far as
the householder s~ction of the Pan th is concerned."
Thus, neither of these two cases is similar to the case before us
where the appellant was converted
to Christianity,
a
religion
which militates against the recognition of division o[ people on
caste basis.
Having gone out of the Hindu religion, the appellant
could not claim thereafter that he still continued to be a member
of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste.
In support of the claim that the appellant rcvcr~cd to the .Adi
Dravida Hindu caste when he aμain started professmg 1.h~ Hmdu
religion, learned counsel relied
on .a
number ot
de~1~1ons. of
various High Courts. The cases relied upon can be d1v1dcd into
c
D
F
G
II
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
•
H
•
RAJAGOPAL v. ARMUGAM (Bhargava, J.)
267
two classes.
The first set of cases are those where tills question
was examined for the purpose of determining the rules of succession, the validi•ty of marriages, or the legitimacy of chlldren.
Such cases which have been brought to our notice are : Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari and Others('), Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar (died) and Others("), Mrs. Agnes
Dorothy Vermani v. Mr. Bryant David Vermani('), and Gaona
Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedda Babu and Another v.
Goona
Sudarsanaswami & 28 Others('). Jn addition, reliance was also
placed on the Report of proceedings of the Appellant Side dated
8th November, 1866 printed at page vii of the Appendix in Vol.
Ill of the Madras High Court Reports.
The second set of cases
consist of recent judgments of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh
and Madras in election petitions arising out of the general elections
of the year 1967 itself. In order to re1y on these judgments, lea'.ned counsel produced before us copies of the Gazettes in which
those judgments have been published. The cases referred to are :
Kothapalli · Narasayya v. Jammana Jogi and Pinninti Jammayya
(Election Petition No. 9 of 1967), K. Narasimha Reddy v. G.
Bhupathi and Manik Rao (Election Petition No. 18 of 1967),
Allam Krishnaiah v. Orepal/i Venkata Subbaiah (Election Petition No. 10 of 1967), decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 28th August, 1967, 28th September, 1967, and 5th September, 1967 respectively, and K. Paramalai v. M. Alangaram
and Another (Election Petition No. 9 of 1967) decided by the
High Court of Madras on 5th October, 1967.
Almost all <these cases laid down the principle that, on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can become a member of the same
caste in which he was born and to which he belonged before having been converted to another religion.
The main basis of the
decisions is that, if the members of the caste accept the reconversion of a person as a member, it shou\d be held that he does become a member of that caste, even though he may have lost
membership of that caste on conversion to another religion.
In
the present case, we do not consider it necessary to express any
opinion on the general question whether, if a person is born in a
particular caste and is converted to another religion as a result
of which he loses the membership of that caste, he can again
become a member of that caste on reconversion to Hinduism.
That is a question which may have to be decided in any of the
appeals that may be brought to this Court from the judgments of
the Andhra Pradesh and the Madras High Courts referred
to
above.
So far as the present case is concerned, we consider that,
even if it be ass.urned that a reconvert can resume the membership
o[ his prevjous caste, the facts established in the present case do
---- --- ------
(!) I.LR. 9 Mad. 466.
(2) 67 M.L.J. Reports, 389 .
(l) A.LR. 1941. Vol. 30 Lah. 51.
(4) I.LR, 1940 Mad.