S. ANBALAGAN versus B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 05-12-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
973 
S. ANBALAGAN 
v 
B. DEVARAJAN & ORS. 
December 5, 1983 . 
[S. MUR:fAZA FAZAL ALI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND 
E. s. VENKA'l'ARAMIAH, JJ.] . 
Jlindu 
Law......,..Hindu 
embracing 
another. religion-whether 
retains 
original cast. On recon'version to Hinduism-Whether performance of any 
particular Ceremony or expiatory rites necessary . 
Representation of the people Act.-Parllamentary electlon7 Constituency 
A 
B 
c 
r,eservedfor scheduled castes-Whetker a Hindu Adi Dravidti (scheduled cast) on 
D 
ieconvei'sion to Hinduism belongs to scheduled COS!tS. 
The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha frorri a constituency 
, which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, The appellant challanged the 
election of the first respondent on the ground that he was not a rrien1ber of the 
Scheduled Castes. The elec£ion Tribunal found that the first respondent belong-
ed to the Scheduled Caste and upheld the electioii. Hence this appeal. The 
a·ppellant urged that the parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown 
to be Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there was no wav 
he coulg acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida · on conversion t~ 
Hinduism. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal. 
F 
HELP : At an· relevant time, .the first respondent was a Hindu Adi 
Dravida and· professed-no religion other than Hipduism. 
The precedents, particularly those from South India, clearly estab1ish 
that no particular ceremony is prescribed for reconversion to Hinduism of a 
Pe.r!on who had earlier embrased another religion. Unless the practice of the 
Caste makes it ne~essary no expiatory rites need be performed-and, ordinarily, 
he regains this caste uriless the comrilun_ity does not accept hi~. In fRct, it may 
not be accurate to say that lie regains his caste, it may be more accufate 
to say that he never lost his caste in the first instance whe.n he embraced an- . 
other religion. The practice of caste however irrational it may appear tQ our 
reason and howCver repugnant it may appear to our nloral and social sense; 
is so deeprooted in the Indian people that its mark does not seegi. to disoppear 
on conversion to a different religion. If !t _disappears, it disappears. only to re-
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
. H 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1984) l S.C.R, 
appear ~n reconversion. The mai:k of caste does: not seem to really disappear 
even after some generati~ns after conversion. 
l~81A-C] 
Administrator_;General .of Madras v. AnOndachari &: Ors. 
!LR 9 
'MADRAS 466, Muthusami Mu,fa/ia & Alir, v. Masi/amani & Ors. JLR 33 
MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadttr v. lru/appa Konar, 
67 MADRAS LAW 
JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josep/Jine Elizabeth, AIR 1937 MAD 172, 
Goona Durgaprasad Rao.v. Sudarsanaswa1ni, ILR 1940 MAD 653, Rajgopalv. 
Armugom & Ors. [1969] I SCR 254, Rajgopa/ v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, 
Perun1al Nadar v; Ponnuswami (1971J I SCR 49, Ver1nani v. Vermani ~IR 1943 
LAHORE 51 and Chatt.urbhuj Vithaldas Jasani V. Moreshwe; Parasfrram & Ors . 
. (1954] SCR 817, referred to. 
In .the ihstant case the birth extract of the first respondent shows his 
parents as Hindu Adi Dravidas. Through out his educational ·career~· ;he was 
treated as a Hindu student belongii:g to the Scheduled Castes and was awaided 
scli.oiarShips on that basis. The school records relating to his childern also 
show them as Hindu Adi Dravidas. He never attended a church. On the other 
bandthere is acceptable evidence to :;how that he was offering worship to Hindu 
. deities in. Hindu tamples and that his nlarriage was performed according to 
Hfndu custom and rites. Even assuming that tlie parents and sisters of the firsi 
respondent had become Christians and that the first respondent hi_mself had 
1teen baptiSed when he was seveh months old, there is no· difficulty. in holding, 
on the evidence in the case, that the first respondCnt had long since reverted to 
Hinduism and to the Adi Dravida Caste. There is not a scrap of acceptable 
evidence to show that he ever professed Christianity after he came of age, On 
the other hand, every bit of evidence .in the case shows that· fi'om his chiidhood, 
he was always. practising Hinduism cind was treated by ev.eryone concerned .is 
an Adi Dravida. There.is then the outstandi~g circumstance that the voters of 
the Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted his candid~ture 
for the reserved seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. (891H ; 892A-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:' Civil Appeal 

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