THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, Nov 27: The Supreme Court today said that religious conversion undertaken solely to get reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermines the fundamental social objectives of the reservation policy.
“India is a secular country. Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a different religion when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted…the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation,” a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has come in a case in which a woman born as a Christian claimed to be a Hindu while applying for an Upper Division Clerk job in Puducherry.
The appellant claimed she was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, both of whom later practised Hinduism. She also asserted that her family belonged to the Valluvan caste, and throughout her education, she was treated as part of the SC community, with her father and brother holding SC certificates.
However, the court noted that a report from the Village Administrative Officer, supported by documentary evidence confirmed that her father was from a Scheduled Caste but had converted to Christianity. The appellant was born in 1990 and baptized in January 1991, shortly after her brother’s baptism in 1989.
The Court held that Scheduled Caste benefits cannot be granted to individuals who have converted to Christianity unless they can demonstrate, with compelling evidence, both reconversion to Hinduism and acceptance by their original caste. Despite the appellant’s assertions of following Hindu practices, she failed to provide sufficient proof of either reconversion or caste reacceptance.
The Court criticized conversion from one religion to another just to derive the benefits of reservation, not with any actual belief in the other religion.
