Holding

A person who has embraced Christianity loses membership of the Scheduled Caste and cannot claim a caste certificate unless a genuine reconversion to Hinduism, accepted by the caste community, is proven, which was not the case here.

Summary

The appellant, C. Selvarani, born to a Christian father and a mother who allegedly converted to Hinduism, applied for a Scheduled Caste (SC) community certificate to secure a government job reserved for SC candidates. The authorities rejected her application on the ground that she does not profess Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism, as required by the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964. The appellant contended that she belongs to the Valluvan caste, a recognized SC, and that her family had reconverted to Hinduism, arguing that caste persists despite conversion. The Supreme Court examined the village administrative officer's report, baptismal records, and testimonies, concluding that the appellant was a born Christian and had not demonstrably reconverted to Hinduism. It held that conversion to Christianity extinguishes caste status and that a mere claim of reconversion without clear evidence cannot revive the caste claim. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the denial of the SC community certificate.

Issues considered

Whether a person who has converted to Christianity can claim a Scheduled Caste community certificate under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
Whether the appellant has satisfactorily proved reconversion to Hinduism sufficient to revive her Scheduled Caste status.
Whether the denial of the certificate amounts to a violation of the appellant's constitutional rights under Articles 341 and 25.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate, indicating that she belongs to Valluvan caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes in the S.C. Order, 1964. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – Appellant was selected for the post of Upper Division Clerk under the Scheduled Caste category – Respondent Authorities directed her to produce the original latest community, residence and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar –

Subjects

Scheduled Caste community certificateValluvan casteConversionReconversion to HinduismChristianBaptismChurch activitiesChristian ritualsPolicy of reservationEmployment under Scheduled Caste CategoryLoss of casteFraud on Constitution

Judgment

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1504 : 2024 INSC 900

C. Selvarani
v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 13086 of 2024)
26 November 2024
[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste
community certificate, indicating that she belongs to Valluvan
caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes in
the S.C. Order, 1964.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Constitution (Pondicherry)
Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – Appellant was selected for
the post of Upper Division Clerk under the Scheduled Caste
category – Respondent Authorities directed her to produce the
original latest community, residence and nativity certificates
issued by the Tahsildar – Appellant applied for the same –
Her application was rejected by the respondent no.3 on the
ground that she does not profess Hinduism, Buddhism and
Sikhism and therefore, the community certificate under the S.C.
Order, 1964, could not be issued to her – The said rejection
was affirmed by the Appellate Authorities as well as by the
High Court – Correctness:
Held: The report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer,
after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence
collected, would clearly establish that the appellant’s father belonged
to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant’s mother was a
Christian and their marriage was performed as per the Christian
rituals and was duly registered – Thereafter, the appellant’s
father had converted to Christianity through baptism and when
the appellant was born, she was also baptized – Therefore, it
is clear that the appellant was a born Christian and she would
not be entitled to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste

*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1505

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

Category – The said facts were also admitted by four persons of
the same village – They also stated that appellant regularly attended
the church activities and her name found place in the Church’s
baptismal register – As far as reconversion of appellant and her
family to Hinduism is concerned, there is no positive act to evince
such conversion – There is no public 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 – In
the instant case, the appellant was a born Christian and could not
be associated with any caste – In any case, upon conversion to
Christianity, one loses her caste and cannot be identified by it – In
view of that, in terms of the S.C. Order, 1964, as per which, the
Scheduled Caste community certificate can be issued only to a
person who is professing either Hinduism Sikhism or Buddhism,
the appellant is not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community
certificate. [Paras 11, 12, 14]

Constitution of India – Art. 25 – Conversion to derive the
benefits of reservation – Not permitted:
Held: Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of
their choice as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution –
One converts to a different religion, when he/she is 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 on the other religion,
the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of
reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat
the social ethos of the policy of reservation – 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 – 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. [Para 15]
1506 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar [2006]
Supp. 8 SCR 105 : (2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 5 :
2006 SCC OnLine SC 1130; Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish
Balaram Bahira [2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 : (2017)
2 SCC (L&S) 708 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 715; S. Rajagopal v.
C.M. Armugam [1969] 1 SCR 254 : 1968 SCC OnLine SC 261 :
(1969) 1 SCJ 738 : AIR 1969 SC 101 – relied on.
Soosai v. Union of India and others [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 242 :
1986 AIR 733; S.Anbalagan v. B.Devarajan and others [1984] 1
SCR 973 : (1984) 2 SCC 112; Guntur and Others v. Mohan Rao
[1976] 3 SCR 1046 : (1976) 3 SCC 411; KP Manu v. Chairman,
Scrutiny Committee [2015] 3 SCR 243 : (2015) 1 SCC 1 : 2015
SCC OnLine SC 161; Mohammad Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru
[2016] 4 SCR 372 : AIR 2016 SC 2054; Kailash Sonkar v. Maya
Devi [1984] 2 SCR 176 : (1984) 2 SCC 91; Sapna Jacob, Minor
v. State of Kerala AIR 1993 Ker 75 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes
Order, 1964; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Scheduled Caste community certificate; Valluvan caste;
Conversion; Reconversion to Hinduism; Christian; Baptism;
Church activities; Christian Rituals; Policy of reservation;
Employment under Schedule Caste Category; Loss of caste;
Fraud on Constitution.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13086 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 15865 of 2022

Appearances for Parties
Ms. N. S. Nappinai, Sr. Adv., V. Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Aravindh S., Abbas B, Ms. Tharane S, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1507

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2023 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras1 dismissing Writ Petition
No.15865 of 2022 preferred by the appellant herein. In the said writ
petition, the appellant prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent
No.3 vide proceedings No.1076/TOP/C/SC/2016 dated 19.06.2017
and the order of the respondent No.2 in No.4583/DCR(N)/A2/2016/
CV/2070 dated 29.08.2017, quash the same as illegal, unlawful,
arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural
justice and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue
Scheduled Caste community certificate to the appellant as per the
Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964,2 based
on the community certificates already issued by the respondent No.3
in favour of the appellant as well as her family members. Through
the order impugned herein, the High Court denied the claim of the
appellant as devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed the writ
petition.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:
3.1. The appellant was born on 22.11.1990 to one Christian S/o.
Mounien and Santhamarie and her birth was duly registered
with Pondicherry Municipality and her parents were permanent
residents of Kombakkampet, Pondicherry. According to the
appellant, her father, grandparents and great grandparents
professed the Hindu religion and belonged to Valluvan Caste,
which is recognised as one of the Scheduled Castes under the
S.C. Order, 1964. Her mother Santhamarie was a Christian by
birth and after marriage, she got converted to Hindu religion and
started to profess the same. Thus, according to the appellant,

1 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
2 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the S.C. Order, 1964”
1508 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

she is a Hindu by religion and belongs to Valluvan Caste; and
she successfully completed her school education and graduation
by availing concessions under the Hindu Adi Dravida quota.
3.2. During 2015, the appellant applied for the post of Upper Division
Clerk3 and after written examination, she was selected and her
name was found at Serial No.48 under the Scheduled Caste
category. In the course of certificate verification, though the
appellant possessed the required certificates, the respondent
authorities insisted her to produce the original latest community,
residence and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar,
within a period of one year from the date of publication of
results, which would satisfy the requirement of being a resident
in Puducherry for a continuous period of 5 years prior to the
date of application. Pursuant thereto, the appellant made an
application seeking community certificate as if she belongs to
a Scheduled Caste category.
3.3. However, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated
29.03.2016 rejecting the appellant’s application on the ground
that she does not profess Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism
and therefore, the community certificate under the S.C. Order,
1964, could not be issued to her. The appeal preferred against
the said order came to be rejected by the respondent No.2,
by order dated 18.07.2016. Thereagainst, the appellant went
on further appeal, in which, the respondent No.1 directed her
to approach the High Court for further remedy, by order dated
30.09.2016.
3.4. Challenging the orders of rejection passed by the respondent
authorities, the appellant preferred WP.No.43516 of 2016, which,
by order dated 10.03.2017, was disposed of by the High Court,
by directing the respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry on the
appellant’s application and pass appropriate orders on merits
and as per law.
3.5. Accordingly, the respondent No.3, by communication dated
30.03.2017, withdrew the order dated 29.03.2016 passed earlier
and furnished all the documents to the appellant and directed

3 For short, “UDC”
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1509

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

her to offer her explanation as to why the Scheduled Caste
Hindu Adi Dravida certificate should not be denied to her. After
receipt of the appellant’s explanation, the respondent No.3
passed the order dated 19.06.2017 rejecting the claim of the
appellant, reiterating the same ground that she does not profess
Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism and hence, the Scheduled Caste
community certificate could not be issued to her. The appeals
preferred against the said order before the respondent No.2
and thereafter, respondent No.1, also, ended in dismissal, vide
orders dated 29.08.2017 and 14.09.2017 respectively.
3.6. In the meanwhile, the appellant approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.310/00417/2017 against
the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the respondent No.7,
cancelling her selection to the post of UDC, and obtained an
interim order that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 shall keep one
post of UDC vacant. Thereafter, the appellant filed WP. No.15865
of 2022 for the relief as stated in paragraph 2 supra.
3.7. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
relying on the decision of this Court in Soosai v. Union of India
and others,4 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant is before us with the present appeal.
4. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the appellant professes the Hindu religion and she belongs to
Valluvan caste, which falls within the ambit of the S.C. Order, 1964,
and hence, she is entitled to get concession under the Adi Dravida
quota. Continuing further, the learned counsel submitted that right
from birth, the appellant is having affinity in professing Hinduism
and has been going to Hindu temples and offering worship to
Hindu deities; through various documents, the appellant was able to
prove that she was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother,
who also, after marriage, started to profess the Hindu religion; her
grandparents and great grandparents belonged to Valluvan caste;
and her grandmother Sivabakkiyam was buried at the burial ground
belonging to the Valluvan community; throughout her educational
career, the appellant was treated as belonging to Scheduled Caste

4 [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 242 : 1986 AIR 733
1510 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

community and the transfer certificates also affirmed her communal
status as such; and the appellant’s father, appellant and her brother
possessed the Scheduled Caste community certificates issued by
the authority concerned. Without properly appreciating the same, the
respondent authorities erred in rejecting the appellant’s application
seeking issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate, on the
premise that she did not fulfill the basic criteria for the same, and
the said decision was also affirmed by the High Court. It is also
contended that the entry made in the Register of Baptism dated
20.11.2015 itself shows that the appellant was born on 22.11.1990
and her baptism had taken place on 06.01.1991, when she was 3
months old and therefore, the same cannot be a ground to deny the
issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate to her.
4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that caste is assigned inherently at birth and does not cease
to operate upon conversion of religion. Rather, it is eclipsed
and can be regained upon reconversion, provided the caste /
community is accepting the reconverted individual. The rationale
behind the same can be understood as if the primary motive
for conversion is upward social mobility which however does
not operate in such a linear manner, rather the caste along
with its socio-economic disparities continues to operate in
the individual’s life and therefore, denying the caste upon
reconversion would not be right to set in law. Additionally, it is
submitted that Hinduism does not prescribe any procedure to
do conversion, however the key requirement for regaining caste
status is that the reconvert must show a sincere intention to fully
return to their original community, completely abandoning the
new religion and embracing the customs and practices of their
former caste, without opposition from its members. To buttress
the same, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following
decisions and the principles laid down therein:
(a) S.Anbalagan v. B.Devarajan and others 5 - ‘For reconversion
to Hinduism, no particular ceremony such as expiratory
rites need be performed unless the practice of the caste
makes it necessary’.

5 [1984] 1 SCR 973 : (1984) 2 SCC 112
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1511

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

(b) The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and others v.
Mohan Rao6- ‘Even if a person does lose the membership
of his caste, on reconversion to another religion, he can
once again become a member of the caste in which he
was born and to which he belonged before conversion to
another religion, if the members of the caste accept him
as a member’.
(c) KP Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee7 - ‘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 recognized 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 community’.
(d) Mohammad Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru8 - ‘A person
can change his religion and faith but not the caste, to
which he belongs, as caste has linkage to birth’.
(e) Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi9 - ‘A caste to which a Hindu
belongs is essentially determined by birth. When a person is
converted to 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.
However, where it appears that the person reconverted to
the old religion had been converted to Christianity since
several generations, it may be difficult to apply the doctrine
of eclipse to the revival of caste’.
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appellant being a
Hindu by religion and belonging to Valluvan caste, is entitled
to the issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate and
denial of the same by the respondent authorities as affirmed

6 [1976] 3 SCR 1046 : (1976) 3 SCC 411
7 [2015] 3 SCR 243 : (2015) 1 SCC 1 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 161
8 [2016] 4 SCR 372 : AIR 2016 SC 2054
9 [1984] 2 SCR 176 : (1984) 2 SCC 91
1512 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

by the High Court, is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and
therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal as well as in the
writ petitions deserve to be set aside.
5. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned
counsel for the respondent(s) submitted that based on the application
made by the appellant on 05.11.2015 seeking community certificate,
the Village Administrative Officer, Kombakkampet, conducted a
detailed enquiry and submitted his report dated 24.11.2015, which
was endorsed by the Revenue Inspector, Mudaliarpet Firka. It is
inter alia stated in the said report that the appellant’s father is a
converted Christian; and the appellant was baptised on 06.01.1991
at the Parish of Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Puducherry as per the
entry made in the Register of Baptism dated 20.11.2015. Whereas,
the appellant submitted several documents including the Scheduled
Caste community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Puducherry under the S.C. Order, 1964, in favour of her as well as
her father and brother. Since there was a contradiction between
the records submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Village
Administrative Officer, the Tahsildar, Puducherry Taluk Office, directed
the Village Administrative Officer to call for opinion about the religion
of the appellant, from the villagers. Accordingly, a notice was affixed
in the notice board and in the conspicuous places in the village. In
response, an objection was received from one Anand, through letter
dated 06.01.2016 stating that the appellant’s father is a converted
Christian and the appellant embraced Christianity and the marriage
of her parents was registered at the Lourdes Shrine, Villianur,
Puducherry; and the said statement was also acknowledged by four
persons of the same village viz., Alencon Karthick, Ravishankar,
Prakash and Arumugam of Kombakkampet. In view of the same,
the Tahsildar passed the order dated 29.03.2016 stating that the
appellant does not profess Hinduism and hence, the Scheduled
Caste community certificate could not be issued to her, as per law.
5.1. Elaborating further, the learned counsel for the respondent(s)
submitted that as per the order of the High Court dated
10.03.2017 in WP.No.43516 of 2016, the Tahsildar, Puducherry
Taluk Office, after calling for the explanation from the appellant,
passed the order dated 19.06.2017 rejecting her application
seeking issuance of Scheduled Caste community certificate and
referred the matter to the District Committee for cancellation
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1513

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

of the community certificate already issued to the appellant;
and the appellate authorities also confirmed the said order of
rejection. Considering all these factors, the High Court rightly
upheld the decision of the respondent authorities and dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant, by the order impugned
herein, which need not be interfered with by this Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and given our thoughtful consideration.
7. On the basis of the pleadings and the submissions made by the
parties, the issue that arises for our consideration is, whether the
appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate,
indicating that she belongs to Valluvan caste, which is recognized
as one of the Scheduled Castes in the S.C. Order, 1964.
8. At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly consider the legal position
connected to this case. Article 341 of the Constitution of India deals
with ‘Scheduled Castes’, which reads as under:
“341. Scheduled Castes
(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union
territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the
Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes,
races or tribes or parts of or group within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State
or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued
under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group
within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied
by any subsequent notification.
By exercising the power conferred under clause (1) of Article 341 of
the Constitution, the President issued the Constitution (Pondicherry)
Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.10 Clause 2 of the same reads as
follows:

10 For short, “the S.C. Order, 1964”
1514 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“2. The castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within
castes, races or tribes specified in the Schedule to this
Order shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed
to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the Union territory of
Pondicherry so far as regards members thereof resident
in that Union territory:
Provided that no person, who professes a religion different
from the Hindu (the Sikh or the Buddhist) religion shall be
deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”
Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above that only such castes
which have been mentioned in the Schedule appended to the S.C.
Order, 1964, shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes with respect
to the Union Territory of Pondicherry; and that, a person, who is
professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, shall be deemed to be
a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Schedule appended to the
S.C. Order, 1964, mentions 15 castes, in which, the Valluvan Caste
finds place at Sl.No.13 and it is hence, recognized as a Scheduled
Caste. That apart, the provisions of the S.C. Order, 1964 were upheld
by this Court in Soosai (supra). It is also pertinent to mention here
that the converts to Christianity from Scheduled Caste irrespective of
generation of conversion would fall under the OBC category as per
G.O. Ms. No. 9/2001-Wel(SW-II), dated 19.02.2001 of the Government
of Puducherry and the Central List of OBC’s for Puducherry vide
No.12011/14/2004-BCC dated 12.03.2007.
9. Admittedly, the appellant is a resident of Pondicherry and her birth
was duly registered in the Pondicherry Municipality and she completed
her school education at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Periyakalapet,
Pondicherry, and B.Tech (IT) at Dr.Pauls Engineering College and
M.Tech (IT) at Pondicherry Engineering College. There cannot be
any dispute that the appellant’s father, appellant and her brother
were in possession of Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued
by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry, which have not been
cancelled till today. However, for the purpose of employment in public
services, the appellant made application for issuance of Scheduled
Caste community certificate. Upon enquiry, the said application
was rejected by the respondent No.3 by order dated 29.03.2016,
as affirmed by the appellate authorities. Subsequently, as directed
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1515

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

by the High Court,11 the said order of rejection was withdrawn by
the respondent No.3 and the documents referred to in the same
were furnished to the appellant. On receipt of the documents, the
appellant filed her reply along with the required documents, including
the community certificates issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk
Office Puducherry in favour of the appellant’s father Christian S/o
Mounien, appellant’s brother Selvaraj S/o Christian and the appellant
Selvarani D/o Christian, transfer certificates issued by the school
and college authorities and the common statement made by four
individuals viz., Punniyakodi, Paramadayalam, Gabrial and Dess
of the same village, indicating that the appellant professes Hindu
religion and belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida) Community.
Thereafter, the respondent No.3, placing reliance on the report of
the Village Administrative Officer, denied the claim of the appellant
on the premise that she embraced Christianity and therefore, she
did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for issuance of Scheduled Caste
community certificate, by order dated 19.06.2017. The said rejection
order was upheld by the appellate authorities as well as by the High
Court. Therefore, this Civil Appeal, at the instance of the appellant.
10. As rightly held by the Kerala High Court in Sapna Jacob, Minor v.
State of Kerala,12 the Court cannot test or gauge the sincerity of
religious belief; or where there is no question of the genuineness of
a person’s belief in a certain religion, the court cannot measure its
depth or determine whether it is an intelligent conviction or ignorant
and superficial fancy. But, a Court can find the true intention of men
lying behind their acts and can certainly find from the circumstances
of a case whether a pretended conversion was really a means to
some further end. Therefore, we shall determine the issue involved
herein in the light of the factual matrix as well as the documentary
evidence.
11. As is evident from the records, the order dated 19.06.2017 was
passed by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry, after furnishing the
appellant all the necessary documents, including the letter sent by the
objector Anand, certified copies of the entry in the Register of Baptism
in respect of the appellant and her brother and the extract from the

11 vide order dated 10.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.43516 of 2016
12 AIR 1993 Ker 75
1516 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Register of Marriage in respect of the parents of the appellant, kept
in Lourdes Shrine, Villianur, Village Administrative Officer’s report
dated 24.11.2015 as endorsed by the Revenue Inspector, Mudaliarpet
Firka and upon considering the reply submitted by the appellant and
hence, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
12. Apparently, the appellant, in her reply, inter alia stated that her
mother, after marriage, had converted to Hinduism and started to
profess the same; the appellant is having more affinity in professing
Hinduism and has been attending Hindu temples and offering worship
to Hindu deities and at no point of time, she professed Christianity;
the caste certificates issued in favour of the appellant, her father
and brother hold good as long as they are not cancelled by the
authority concerned; and due to political enmity with her brother, the
said Anand gave objection for issuing Scheduled Caste community
certificate to her; and it is the statement given by four persons viz.,
Punniyakodi, Paramadayalan, Gabriel and Dess that the appellant’s
father and appellant belong to Adi Dravida Hindu community.
However, the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer,
after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence
collected, would clearly establish that the appellant’s father belonged
to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant’s mother was a
Christian and their marriage was performed as per the Christian
rituals and duly registered on 12.11.1987 by Rev.Fr.E.Showry as
evident from the certificate issued on 15.03.2017 by the parish of
Lourdes Shine, Villianur and thereafter, the appellant’s father had
converted to Christianity through baptism; baptism of the appellant’s
brother was done on 07.05.1989; and the appellant was born on
22.11.1990 and she was baptized on 06.01.1991 at Lourdes Shrine,
Villianur, Pondicherry within two months. Therefore, it is clear that
the appellant was a born Christian and she would not be entitled
to claim the certificate under Scheduled Caste Category. The
said facts were also admitted by four persons of the same village
viz., Alencon Karthick, Ravishankar, Prakash and Arumugam of
Kombakkampet by stating that the appellant had undertaken baptism
and regularly attended the church activities and her name found
place in the Church’s baptismal register. The objector Anand in his
letter dated 06.01.2016 had categorically averred that the appellant
belongs to Christian religion. On the other hand, the statement of
the villagers viz., Punniyakodi, Paramadayalam, Gabral and Dess,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1517

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

that the appellant’s mother being Christian by birth, used to go
to Villianur and Kompakkampet village church as she professes
Christianity, is contrary to the statement made by the appellant that
her mother had converted to Hinduism after marriage and started
to profess the same. In such circumstances, the appellant ought
to have produced something more than mere statements. When
the facts are otherwise, she cannot simply claim that her father got
reconverted and she and her mother converted. The appellant and
her family, if they really intended to get themselves converted, ought
to have done some positive act to evince such conversion rather
than a meek claim to be practicing Hinduism. One of the methods
of conversion is by adopting a procedure prescribed through the
Arya Samaj. A public declaration to the effect of evincing conversion
could also have been made. There is no documentary evidence to
that effect and the oral evidence sought to be relied upon by the
appellant is also against her. Even assuming that the appellant’s
mother had converted to Hinduism after marriage, she ought not to
have baptized her children in the church and hence, the statement
of the appellant is untrustworthy. The certified copies of the baptism
and extract from the register of marriage of the appellant’s parents
at Lourdes Shrine, Villianur gathered by the Village Administrative
Officer, Murungapakkam Village, further disclosed that the appellant’s
father is a converted Christian and the appellant was baptized after
her birth. Thus, it can safely be inferred by us that the appellant is a
Christian by religion and she does not profess Hinduism. In view of
that, in terms of the S.C. Order, 1964, as per which, the Scheduled
Caste community certificate can be issued only to a person who is
professing either Hinduism Sikhism or Buddhism, the appellant is
not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate.
12.1. However, it is not evident from records, as to how the appellant
was issued with a Scheduled caste community certificate
earlier. But for the requirement under the Declaration in Sl. No
2 in the application for the post of UDC, the denova enquiry
would not have happened. It is settled law that an illegality
cannot be perpetuated. In this regard, it will be useful to refer
to the following judgments of this Court, wherein it was held
that the State was well within its power to take appropriate
action, when it comes to its knowledge that a certificate was
obtained by fraud.
1518 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(i) State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing
Parmar13
“23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis
on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of
India provides for protective discrimination and
reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group
to come on the same platform as that of the forward
community. If and when a person takes an undue
advantage of the said beneficent provision of the
Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation
and other benefits provided under the Presidential
Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not
only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and
substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When,
therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is
not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect
to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator
in the matter.”
(ii) Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira14
“56. Service under the Union and the States, or for
that matter under the instrumentalities of the State
subserves a public purpose. These services are
instruments of governance. Where the State embarks
upon public employment, it is under the mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 to follow the principle of equal
opportunity. Affirmative action in our Constitution is
part of the quest for substantive equality. Available
resources and the opportunities provided in the form
of public employment are in contemporary times
short of demands and needs. Hence, the procedure
for selection, and the prescription of eligibility criteria
has a significant public element in enabling the State
to make a choice amongst competing claims. The
selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of
a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on

13 [2006] Supp. 8 SCR 105 : (2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 5 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1130
14 [2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 708 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 715
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1519

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who
is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to
gain access to scarce public resources. Secondly,
the rights of eligible persons are violated since a
person who is not eligible for the post is selected.
Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing
benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. These
effects upon good governance find a similar echo
when a person who does not belong to a reserved
category passes of as a member of that category
and obtains admission to an educational institution.
Those for whom the Constitution has made special
provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter
who does not belong to a reserved category is
selected. The fraud on the Constitution precisely
lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided
and stringent steps be taken by the Court to ensure
that unjust claims of imposters are not protected in
the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142.
The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital
institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The
judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised
to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the
benefits which have accrued to an imposter on
the specious plea of equity. Once the legislature
has stepped in, by enacting Maharashtra Act 23
of 2001, the power under Article 142 should not
be exercised to defeat legislative prescription. The
Constitution Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Milind,
(2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] spoke on
28-11-2000. The State law has been enforced from
18-10-2001. Judicial directions must be consistent
with law. Several decisions of two-Judge Benches
noticed earlier, failed to take note of Maharashtra
Act 23 of 2001. The directions which were issued
under Article 142 were on the erroneous inarticulate
premise that the area was unregulated by statute.
Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn.,
(2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265]
noted the statute but misconstrued it.”
1520 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

13. In the case on hand, the field verification clearly revealed the registration
of the marriage of the parents of the appellant under the Indian Christian
Marriage Act, 1872, the baptism of the appellant and her brother and
also the fact that they had been regularly attending the church. Any
interference with such findings of fact is unwarranted unless the findings
are perverse so as to shock the conscience of the Court. Therefore,
we are of the opinion that the respondent authorities, after a thorough
enquiry and having analysed the documentary evidence, reached the
right conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the Scheduled
Caste Community Certificate and accordingly, the matter was referred
to the District Committee for cancellation of the community certificate
already issued to her. The High Court also, upon due consideration
of the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position, was
correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
14. Though a feeble argument was made by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the baptism was done when the appellant was less
than three months old, the same does not inspire our confidence as
she did not make any attempt to cancel the registration of baptism
nor she filed any declaratory suit in this regard. The decisions of this
Court referred to on the side of the appellant, are of no assistance
to the appellant, as the same are factually distinguishable and dealt
with by this Court on different aspects. In the present case, the
appellant was a born Christian and could not be associated with any
caste. In any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one loses her
caste and cannot be identified by it. As the factum of reconversion
is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion
had not happened by any ceremony or through Arya Samaj. No
public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show
that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the
contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes
Christianity. As noticed above, the evidence on hand is also against
the appellant. Therefore, the contention raised on the side of the
appellant that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion
and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, is unsustainable in
the facts of the case. On this aspect, it would be useful to refer to
the judgment of this Court in S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam,15 in
which, it was observed as under:

15 [1969] 1 SCR 254 : 1968 SCC OnLine SC 261 : (1969) 1 SCJ 738 : AIR 1969 SC 101
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1521

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

“16. We agree with the High Court that, when the appellant
embraced Christianity in 1949, he lost the membership of
the Adi Dravida Hindu caste. The Christian religion does
not recognise any caste classifications. All Christians are
treated as equals and there is no distinction between
one Christian and another of the type that is recognised
between members of different castes belonging to Hindu
religion. In fact, caste system prevails only amongst
Hindus or possibly in some religions closely allied to the
Hindu religion like Sikhism. Christianity is prevalent not
only in India but almost all over the world and nowhere
does Christianity recognise caste division. The tenets of
Christianity militate against persons professing Christian
faith being divided or discriminated on the basis of any such
classification as the caste system. It must, therefore, be
held that, when the appellant got converted to Christianity
in 1949, he ceased to belong to the Adi Dradiva caste.
17. In this connection, we may take notice of a decision of
the Madras High Court in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran,
Additional Secretary to Government Public (Elections)
Department, Madras [AIR 1952 Mad 474] 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 their creed or tenets.”
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 aspect, the Court held:
“This is somewhat analogous to cases in which
even after conversion certain families and
groups continue to be governed by the law by
which they were governed before they became
1522 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

converts. But these 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.
……
21. 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 should 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 assumed that a reconvert can resume the
membership of his previous caste, the facts established in
the present case do not show that the appellant succeeded
in doing so. All these cases proceed on the basis that,
in order to resume membership of his previous caste,
the person must be reconverted to the Hindu religion
and must also be accepted by the caste in general as a
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1523

C. Selvarani v.
The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others

member after reconversion. We do not think it necessary
to refer to specific sentences where these principles have
been relied upon in these various judgments. It is, in our
opinion, enough to take notice of the decision in Goona
Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedaa Babu, where these two
aspects were emphasised by a Full Bench of the Madras
High Court. In that case, the first question that arose was
whether a person could become a convert to Hinduism
without going through a formal ceremony of purification. It
was held that no proof of any particular ceremonial having
been observed was required. Varadachariar, J., held that
when on the facts it appears that a man did change his
religion and was accepted by his co-religionists as having
changed his religion, and lived, died and was cremated
in that religion, the absence of some formality should not
negative what is an actual fact. Considering the question
of entry into the caste, Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., held
that, in matters affecting the well-being or composition of
a caste, the caste itself is the supreme Judge. It was on
this principle that a reconvert to Hinduism could become
a member of the caste, if the caste itself as the supreme
Judge accepted him as a full member of it. In the appeal
before us, we find that the appellant has not given evidence
to satisfy these requirements in order to establish that he
did become a member of Adi Dravida Hindu caste by the
time of general elections in 1967.”
15. At this juncture, we may observe that India is a secular country. Every
citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a
different religion, when he/she is 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 on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the
extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive
will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation. 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
1524 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

purpose of employment. Such a dual claim made by her is untenable
and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism.
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.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no
order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan