Skip to main content

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”.

Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.”

The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse.

Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution bench judgment, the bench said the reservation benefits for the castes recognised under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, could not be confined to only those whose parents had converted to Christianity. “If a person born to Christian parents, who had converted to Christianity from the Scheduled Caste Hindu, can avail the benefits of the caste certificate after embracing Hinduism, there cannot be any soundness of logic that he cannot avail similar benefits because his grandparents were converted and he was born to parents who were Christians,” it said.

The bench, however, said the person must fulfill three mandatory conditions to avail such benefits after “reconversion” — there must be clear proof that he belongs to a caste duly recognised as a Scheduled Caste, that he has “reconverted” to the original religion to which his parents or earlier generations belonged, and that he has been accepted by the community.

The bench further clarified that marriage to a Christian person would not entail disqualification. “As far as marriage is concerned, in our considered opinion, it should not have been considered as the central and seminal facet to deny the benefit. When the community has accepted and the community, despite the marriage, has not excommunicated or expelled, the same would not be a disqualification,” it said.

The court ruling came on an appeal filed by a person whose caste certificate was cancelled in 2006 by the scrutiny committee, set up under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, on the ground that he was born to Christian parents and was not following the traditions of the community.

K P Manu’s great grandfather belonged to a Hindu community, and his grandfather converted to Christianity. Manu’s parents also practiced Christianity.

However, when he was 24, Manu “reconverted” to Hinduism and got a caste certificate from the Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva Sangham — an institution recognised by the state government for issuing caste certificates.

He was employed in Malabar Cements, a state government undertaking. After his certificate was cancelled, the state administration ordered his removal from service and also sought to recover Rs 15 lakh paid as salary to him.

The bench, however, ruled in his favour, noting that he fulfilled all the three conditions required to avail the benefits. It ordered the state to reinstate Manu with all the benefits relating to his seniority and caste, and said he should be paid back wages up to 75 per cent within eight weeks.


Article referred: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/christian-who-reconverts-as-hindu-sc-will-get-quota-benefits-apex-court/2/

Comments

  1. Sneha Shah27 June 2020 at 18:22

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more