Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. The Apex Court considered this question as to whether the caste mark gets erased on conversion to other religions from Hinduism in Kailash Sonkar Vs. Smt.Maya Devi reported in 1984 (2) SCC 91, wherein, the Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani V. Moreshwar Parashram reported in AIR 1954 SC 236 and G.M.Arumugham V. S.Rajagopal reported in (1976) 1 SCC 863.

28.1. The respondent in Kailash Sonkar's case was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste. The election of Tmt.Mayadevi was questioned in that case on the ground that she did not belong to Scheduled Caste and that she was a Scheduled Caste Christian. The respondent Smt.Maya Devi was born to Christian Scheduled Caste parents. She reconverted to Hinduism. The issue was as to whether on reconversion, her caste would revive. The Apex Court held that there would be revival of caste on reconversion and the revival of caste, on reconversion, does not even require admission of the members of the community of the caste to the original faith. 28.2. The question as to whether the caste mark erased on conversion to another religion from Hinduism is considered in paragraph 13 of Kailash Sonkar's case and that is extracted hereunder, which is an extract from Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani V. Moreshwar Parashram reported in AIR 1954 SC 236:

31. Therefore, the conversion to Christianity or Islam does not automatically result in the erosion of the caste mark and particularly, it is categorically held in the above referred to decisions in G.M.Arumugham's case ([1976] 1 SCC 863) and Kailash Sonkar's case (1984 (2) SCC 91) rendered by the Apex Court that in South India and North-Eastern States it is peculiar that even after conversion to Christianity, the caste mark is continued.

32. In fact, the Apex Court in Kailash Sonkar's case (cited supra) expressed in paragraph 19 that the observations extracted from G.M.Arumugham's case (cited supra) are "weighty observations" supporting the view that after reconversion to Hindu religion, the caste will normally revive, since the caste mark continues even after conversion. Ultimately, the Apex Court upheld that the respondent Smt.Maya Devi therein, belonged to Scheduled Caste and therefore, her success in the election was upheld. The following passage from paragraph 30 is extracted hereunder:

33. Therefore, there is no difficulty in cases, where there is no erosion of caste, after conversion, for revival of caste on reconversion, even after so many generations. In the case of Christian in South India and in North-Eastern States, where the caste tag continues even after conversion to Christianity and on reconversion to Hinduism, the caste would get revived. When a person is converted to Christianity or some other religion and the caste tag does not continue after conversion, 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. The Apex Court had a rider in those cases, where there is erosion of caste on conversion, as found in paragraph 34, that it may be difficult to apply the doctrine of eclipse to the revival of caste, if reconversion takes place after several generations.

37. In the light of the aforesaid findings of the Apex Court, I am not in full agreement with the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that while caste mark is continued in the case of Christianity, it is totally erased in Islam. However, the issue as to the caste mark is continued or not assumes much importance only in cases, where there is reconversion for the purpose of deciding the caste on such reconversion. In this case, we are concerned only with the conversion of the petitioner from Hindu Nadar community to Labbai Muslim in Islam.