Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
G. Michael vs Mr. S. Venkateswaran, Additional ... on 6 November, 1951
When an argument was advanced before the Madras High Court
in G. Michael's case (supra) "that there were several cases
in which a member of one of the lower castes who has been
converted to Christianity has continued not only to consider
himself as still being a member of the caste, but has also
been considered so by other members of the caste who had not
been converted," Rajamannar, C.J.,-who, it can safely be
presumed, was familiar with the customs and practices
prevalent in South India, accepted the position "that
instances can be found in which in spite of conversion the
caste distinctions might continue", though he treated them
as exceptions to the general rule.
Ganpat vs Returning Officer & Ors on 4 December, 1974
The caste system is indeed so deeply ingrained in the
Indian mind that, as pointed out by this Court in Ganpat v.
Returning Officer ,(2) "for a person who has grown up in
Indian society, it is very difficult to get out of the coils
of the caste system" and, therefore, even conversion to
another religion like Christianity, has in some cases no
impact on the membership of the caste and the other members
continue to regard the convert as still being a member of
the caste. This Court pointed out in Ganpat`s case (supra)
that "to this day one sees matrimonial advertisements which
want a Vellala Christian bride or Nadar Christian bride"
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani vs Moreshwar Parashram And Others on 15 February, 1954
What is, therefore, material to consider is how the caste
looks at the question of conversion. Does it outcaste or ex-
communicate the convert or does it still treat him as
continuing within its fold despite his conversion ? If the
convert desires and intends to continue as a member of the
caste and the caste also continues to treat him as a member,
notwithstanding his conversion, he would continue to be a
member of the caste and, as pointed out by this Court "the
views of the new faith hardly matter". This was the
principle on which it was decided by the Court in
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani's case (supra) that Gangaram
Thaware, whose nomination as a Scheduled Caste candidate was
rejected by the Returning officer, continued to be a Mahar
which was specified as a Scheduled Caste, despite his
conversion to the Mahanubhav faith.
Gurusami Nadar vs Irulappa Konar And Ors. on 11 April, 1934
The rites of expiation were referred to by the learned Judge
because they were enjoined by the Brahmin caste to which the
reconvert wanted to be readmitted. But if no rites or
ceremonies are required to be performed for readmission of a
person as a member of the caste, the only thing necessary
for eradication would be the acceptance of the person
concerned by the other members of the caste. This was
pointed out by Varadachariar, J., in Gurusami Nadar v.
Irulappa Konar(2); where after referring to the aforesaid
passage from Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandchari
(supra), the learned Judge said:
Goona Durgaprasada Rao Alias Pedda Babu ... vs Goona Sudarsanaswami And Ors. on 27 October, 1939
These observations of Varadachariar, J., were approved by
Mockett, J., in Durgaprasada Rao v. Sudarsanaswami(1) and he
pointed out that in the case before him, there was no
evidence of the existence of any ceremonial in Vada Baligi
fishermen community of Gopalpur for readmission to that
community. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., also observed in the
same case that "in matters affecting the well being or
composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme
judge". (emphasis supplied). The same view has also been
taken in a number of decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and
Madras High Courts in election petitions arising out of 1967
General Election.
S. Rajagopal vs C. M. Armugam & Ors on 3 May, 1968
These decisions have been set out in the
judgment of this Court in Rajagopal v. C. R. Arumugam
(supra).