Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

So far as this Court is concerned, these questions were clearly answered in Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram & Ors.,(2) (hereinafter referred to as 'Jasani's, case' where a triple test was laid down thus:

"Looked at from the secular point of view, there are three factors which have to be considered:
(1) the reactions of the old body, (2) the intentions of the individual himself and (3) the rules of the new order. If the old order is tolerant of the new faith and sees no reason to outcaste or ex-communicate the convert and the individual himself desires and intends to retain his old social and political ties, the conversion is only nominal for all practical purposes and when we have to consider the legal and political rights of the old body the views of the new faith hardly matter...On the other hand, if the convert has shown by his conduct and dealings that his break from the old order is so complete and final that he no longer regards himself as a member of the old body and there is reconversion and readmittance to the old fold, it would be wrong to hold that he can nevertheless claim temporal privileges and political advanta-

The next case which throws some light on the question is S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam Ors.(1) In this case what had happened was that the appellant (before the Supreme Court) had filed his nomination papers for a constituency reserved for members of the scheduled caste mentioned under the 1950 Order but he was defeated by respondent No. 1 of that case, whose petition succeeded. The contention in the petition was that the appellant was not a Hindu but a Christian and therefore not qualified to be a candidate for a constituency reserved for scheduled caste. The High Court found as a fact that the appellant had become a Christian in 1949 and his later reconversion to Hinduism remained unproved. This Courts agreeing with the High Court dismissed the appeal. One important feature of this case may be noted which would at once distinguish this case from the facts of the present case. The question as to whether a Christian on being reconverted to Hinduism would get back his caste did not arise at all in that case because on the facts found, reconversion was not proved. Therefore, the question of caste being acquired or being revived on reconversion to Hinduism did not fall for determination and was left open. Even so, considering Jasani's case and a number of other texts, Bhargava, J. made the following observations:

In our opinion, there is one aspect which does not appear to have been dealt with by any of the cases discussed by us. Suppose, A, a member of the scheduled caste, is converted to Christianity and marries a Christian girl and a daughter is born to him who, according to the tenets of Christian religion, is baptised and educated. After she has attained the age of discretion she decides of her own volition to re-embrace Hinduism, should in such a case revival of the caste depend on the views of the members of the community of the caste concerned or would it automatically revive on her reconversion if the same is genuine and followed by the necessary rites and ceremonies ? In other words, is it not open for B (the daughter) to say that because she was born of Christian parents their religion cannot be thrust on her when after attaining the age of discretion and gaining some knowledge of the world affairs, she decides to revert to her old religion. It was not her fault that she was born of Christian parents and baptised at a time when she was still a minor and knew nothing about the religion. Therefore, should the revival of the caste depend on the whim or will of the members of the community of her original caste or she would lose her caste for ever merely because fortunately or unfortunately she was born in a Christian family ? With due respect, our confirmed opinion is that although the views of the members of the community would be an important factor, their views should not be allowed to a complete loss of the caste to which B belonged. Indeed, if too much stress is laid on the views of the members of the community the same may lead to dangerous exploitation. Perhaps, this factor was present in the mind of Bhagwati, J., who delivered the leading judgment in a later decision of this Court in G.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal & Ors.(1) where, speaking for the Court, he made the following observations:

"The monstrous curse of untouchability has got to be eradicated. It has got to be eradicated not merely by making constitutional provisions or laws but also by eradicating it from the minds and hearts of men. For that it is even more important that members of communities who are untouchable should assert their self-respect and fight for their dignity than that members of the other communities should forget about it.
In our opinion, the main test should be a genuine intention of the reconvert to abjure his new religion and completely dissociate himself from it. We must hasten to add here that this does not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a cover to gain mundane worldly benefits so that the reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a particular purpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mystery. The reconvert must exhibit a clear and genuine intention to go back to his old fold and adopt the customs and practices of the said fold without any protest from members of his erstwhile caste. In order to judge this factor, it is not necessary that there should be a direct or conclusive proof of the expression of the views of the community of the erstwhile caste and it would be sufficient compliance of this condition if no exception or protest is lodged by the community members, in which case the caste would revive on the reconversion of the person to his old religion.