Supreme Court rejects Christian woman’s claim for Scheduled Caste reservation, deems it a ‘Fraud on the Constitution’

The case revolves around the application of C Selvarani, a woman from Tamil Nadu, for an Upper Division Clerk position in the Union Territory of Puducherry. She sought to avail herself of the reservation benefits for Scheduled Caste candidates, claiming she was a Hindu belonging to the Valluvan caste, traditionally classified as Scheduled Caste. However, investigations by the state government revealed that Selvarani had been born into a Christian family. Her father, who was originally Hindu, had converted to Christianity, and she herself had been baptized shortly after birth in 1991.

Selvarani’s application for the SC certificate was based on the claim that her family was from the Valluvan caste, which has historically been part of the Scheduled Caste community in Tamil Nadu. Her father and brother had SC certificates, and she presented her claim for the same, hoping to secure the reservation benefits that are provided to SC communities in government jobs. However, during the verification process, it was discovered that she had been baptised into Christianity shortly after her birth, which raised serious questions about her eligibility for the SC status.

The Tamil Nadu government conducted a thorough verification of Selvarani’s claims. This included reports from the Village Administrative Officer, as well as other documentary evidence, which revealed the following key facts:

• Religious Background: Selvarani’s father had converted to Christianity before her birth, and her marriage had been registered under the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The documents also confirmed that she had been baptised in January 1991, soon after her brother’s baptism in 1989.
• Absence of Reconversion Evidence: Despite her claims of reconversion to Hinduism, no formal evidence was provided to support this assertion. There was no documentation of a public or ceremonial reconversion, nor was there any evidence that she or her family had been accepted back into the Valluvan caste after conversion.

The state’s findings, including testimonies and documents, indicated that Selvarani was born a Christian and had not undergone any formal reconversion. In light of this evidence, the State rejected her application for an SC certificate.

In January 2023, the Madras High Court upheld the State’s decision to reject Selvarani’s application, emphasising that a person cannot claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste once they have converted to another religion, such as Christianity. The High Court further noted that the appellant could not be identified with any caste after her conversion to Christianity and that there was insufficient evidence to support her claim of reconversion to Hinduism.

The High Court also pointed out that individuals who convert to Christianity lose their caste status, and there must be clear evidence of reconversion to reclaim their original caste status. As there was no formal evidence of reconversion, the High Court rejected Selvarani’s claim for SC status.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s verdict, Selvarani approached the Supreme Court. However, in a detailed and robust judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, reinforcing the principle that conversion to another religion purely for the purpose of gaining benefits under the reservation system violates the very purpose and social ethos of the reservation policy.

The bench, led by Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered a strong message, stating, “The conferment of Scheduled Caste communal status to the appellant, who is a Christian by religion but claims to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution.” The Court explained that the policy of reservation is intended to uplift socially and economically disadvantaged communities, and allowing individuals to claim benefits under false pretenses defeats this objective.

The Court went on to explain the fundamental principles underlying religious conversion in India. While India is a secular country and citizens have the right to practice and follow any religion of their choice, the Court emphasised that conversion for ulterior motives, such as to gain advantages from affirmative action policies, is impermissible.

The ruling made it clear that religious conversion must be a genuine process, motivated by a belief in the tenets and principles of the adopted religion. Conversion for the sake of exploiting reservation benefits goes against the social ethos of India’s reservation policy. “One converts to a different religion when genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets, and spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion is solely to derive the benefits of reservation, that cannot be permitted, as it defeats the social ethos of the policy,” the Court observed.

The Court also stressed that caste is inherently tied to religious identity in India, particularly in Hinduism, and that once an individual converts to another religion, they lose their caste status. As the appellant’s conversion to Christianity was not disputed and there was no compelling evidence of reconversion, her claim to Scheduled Caste status was deemed invalid. The Court ruled that the mere claim of following Hindu practices, without evidence of formal reconversion, was insufficient.