KODIKUNNIL SURESH @ J. MONIAN versus N.S. SAJI KUMAR, ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 12-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 640 
KODIKUNNIL SURESH @ J. MONIAN 
v. 
N.S. SAJI KUMAR, ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.6391-93 of 2010) 
MAY 12, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951: s.100(1)(a) -
Election of appellant to the House of People from the 
C 
Mavelikkara Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the 
Scheduled Castes - Challenged on the ground that the 
appellant was a Christian and not a Scheduled Caste and 
therefore, not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House 
of People u/s.4(a) of the Act - High Court declared his 
o election void u/s.100(1)(a) of the Act - On appeal, held: The 
father of the appellant originally was a member of the 
Cheramar caste which was admittedly a Scheduled Caste in 
the State of Kera/a - His father due to poverty had availed 
various reliefs from Christian Missionaries and was known as 
E 'Joseph' - On conversion to Christianity, the father of the 
appellant ceased to be a member of the Cheramar caste -
However in 1978, appellant underwent an expiatory ceremony 
and reconverted himself to Hinduism and was thereafter 
accepted as a member of Cheramar caste - Evidence clearly 
F 
showed tha( the appellant had not only unequivocally 
expressed the intention of reconverting to Hinduism in 1978, 
but also conducted himself since 1978 in a manner true to 
the faith of Hindu religion by marrying a Hindu in accordance 
with the ceremonies of the Hindu religion and had been 
G visiting Hindu temples for worship of different idols and had 
in fact abjured the Christian religion - Appellant had 
reconverted to Hinduism in 1978 after fully realizing the 
religious significance and social consequences of his 
decision to reconvert to Hinduism - Therefore conversion of 
appellant at the age of 16 years was not invalid conversion 
H 
640 
KODIKUNNIL SURESH@ J. MONIAN v. N.S. SAJI 
641 
KUMAR, ETC. ETC. 
to Hinduism -Appellant was actively working for the upliftment A 
of the Cheramar community and was accepted and admitted 
into the fold of Hindu Cheramar Community by its members 
who were Cheramar Hindus - In four earlier elections, 
appellant got elected from the Adoor Parliamentary 
Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste - All these B 
circumstances clearly established that the appellant after his 
reconversion to Hinduism in 1978 was accepted by the 
members of the Cheramar caste - Accordingly his election 
was not void u/ss.100 (1)(a) and 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Act. 
Evidence Act, 1872: ss.3, 35 - Applicability of provisions C 
of the Act to the Representation of People Act, 1951 -
Discussed - Representation of People Act, 1951 - s.87. 
The appellant was elected to the House of People 
from the Mavelikkara Parliamentary Constituency D 
reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The election of the 
appellant was challenged by two voters and a defeated 
candidate of the said Constituency on the ground that the 
appellant was a Christian and under the Constitution 
(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 only a Hindu can be a E 
Scheduled Caste and not being a Scheduled Caste, he 
was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House 
of People under Section 4(a) of the Representation of 
People Act, .1951 and, therefore, his election was void 
under Section 100(1)(a) of the Act. The defence of the F 
appellant was that his parents were Hindus and only due 
G. 
to poverty, they had availed various reliefs from Christian 
Missionaries and that is why his father was known as 
'Joseph' by the Christian Missionaries. His further cas~ 
was that in 1978, he had undergone an expiatory 
ceremony and had reconverted himself to Hinduism and 
was thereafter accepted as a member of Cheramar caste. 
The High Court declared the election of the appellant void 
under Sections 100 (1)(a) and 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Act. It held 
that the appellant was born to Christian parents and that H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
when the appellant undertook the expiatory ceremony in 
1978 to convert himself to Hinduism, he had not attained 
the age of discretion as he was under 18 years of age. It 
further held that though the appellant married a Hindu 
and he professed Hindu religion, there was no 
B acceptable evidence to prove· that the appellant was 
accepted as a member of the Cheramar Caste after his 
re-conversion to Hinduism. Relying on the decisions of 
the Suprem~ Court that without acceptance by the 
Scheduled Caste community after re-conversion, the 
c reconv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.