Conversion Extinguishes Scheduled Caste Status - Supreme Court

                                       

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and dismissed the instant Criminal Appeal of the Appellant, Chinthada Anand. The High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings against Respondents for offence registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The SC/ST Act is a statutory enactment of the Parliament of India. The Act serves as crucial legal framework to protect the rights and dignity of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in India ensuring stringent measures against offences of atrocities and promoting their welfare and security – Court said.

BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

          The Appellant, a Pastor also belonging to Madiga Community, a Schedule Caste alleged to receiving caste-based slurs and threatened dire consequence from Respondent. These calls, according to him, were on account of his religious activities and his presence in the village as a Pastor. The abuse and threat ultimately resulted in assault. The Respondent slapped him and warned him from continuing prayer meetings, alleged by the Appellant. The principal incident as alleged by Appellant, occurred in 2021, while he was returning home from Sunday prayers, the appellant wrongfully restrained, dragged, beaten and abused by caste name and threatened with death. It was also alleged that threats were extended to kill his family members and kidnap his children.

          On the next day, the Appellant filed a written complaint against the Respondents/accused persons under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

                   The accused thereafter approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing the proceedings. The Respondents raised a ground that the Appellant, Chithanda Anand converted to Christianity and was working as a Pastor for 10 years and  therefore in view of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,1950, he could not legally claim the status of a Scheduled Caste so as to invoke the provision of the SC/ST Act.

          The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground he has been openly professing Christianity and the caste system is not recognised in Christianity. So cannot, in law, claim protection under SC/ST Act.

          Further, High Court also noted that the witnesses did not support the appellant’s version of a large group assault and only limited corroboration was available for the alleged restraint and attack.  The High Court viewed that continuation of the criminal proceedings against respondents would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

          Therefore, being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal challenging the quashing of proceedings against respondents.

 

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT

 

          The Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court has wrongly quashed the criminal proceedings despite being present prima facie case against the respondents and the High Court failed to note that the appellant was subjected to physical assault and caste-based slurs.

          It was also submitted that the High Court erred in holding that the appellant was disentitled from invoking the provisions of the SC/ST Act merely on account of his conversion to Christianity.

          “Caste is a matter of birth and not of faith, and change of religion does not wipe out the social identity and historical disadvantages attached to one’s case” – he argued.

         

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS

          The learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings since the appellant professes and practices Christianity and in such a situation he cannot claim the protection of SC/ST Act which is applicable only to persons who are members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (24) of Article 366 read with Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.

          Additionally, leaned senior counsel pointed out the provision of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 which unequivocally provides that no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism shall be deemed to a member of a Scheduled Caste.

         

ANALYSIS OF CASE

          Before coming to conclusion regarding the case at hand, the Supreme Court deemed fit to delineate the broader legal issue namely under which conditions a person who has undergone religious conversion, may avail the statutory benefits granted to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

          In relation to Scheduled Caste, the President issued the Constitution (Schedule Caste) Order 1950 in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Where it is mentioned under Clause (3) that no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

          So the plain meaning of the words Christianity is not been mentioned in the said Order. Only the member who professes Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist religion are deemed to be Scheduled Caste.

         

The term ‘professes’ was interpreted in the case of Punjabrao vs. D.P Meshram, 1964 which said that the term connotes public declaration or practice of religion. The essence of the word is open declaration of one’s religious beliefs in a manner discernible to the public at large. It is an outward manifestation of one’s faith.

         

PRINCIPLES

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court suggested the following principles on the light of reading of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 for determining the entitlement of a person to be recognised as a member of a Scheduled Caste.

a)       The claimant must demonstrably belong to a caste or tribe which is specifically notified and recognised under Clause 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and such status must be established by clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence.

b)      No person who professes a religion other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. This bar under Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is categorical and absolute. Conversion to any religion not specified in Clause 3 results in immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status from the moment of conversion regardless of birth.

c)       No statutory benefit, protection, reservation, or entitlement under the Constitution or under any enactment of Parliament or State Legislature that is predicated upon the membership of a Scheduled Caste can be claimed by or extended to any person who, by operation of Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, is not deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. This bar is absolute and admits no exception.

d)      A person cannot simultaneously profess and practice a religion other than the ones specified in Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and claim membership of a Scheduled Caste at the same time. A person who professes and practices such religion for personal, social and spiritual purposes cannot in law, assert membership of a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of securing statutory benefits. The two positions are mutually exclusive and contrary to the Constitutional scheme.

 e)      In cases where a person claims to have reconverted from a religion not specified in Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 back to Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religion, the following three conditions must be cumulatively and conclusively established:

i. There must be a clear proof that the person originally belonged to a caste notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

ii. There must be credible and unimpeachable evidence of bona fide reconversion to the original religion, accompanied by complete and unequivocal renunciation of the religion to which conversion had taken place, total dissociation therefrom, and actual adoption and observance of the customs, usages, practices, rituals, and religious obligations of the original caste.

Also Read: Determination of Creamy Layer is not simply based on parents' income, but on social status - SC

          In the case in hand, on the submission of the Appellant that he continues to retain his Scheduled Caste Status by birth notwithstanding such conversion,  the Court said caste status mentioned in the Constitution (Schedule Caste) Order cannot be accepted once he converts to Christianity as it stands eclipsed in the eye of law.

In relation to contention of the Appellant that he possess caste certificate, the top Court viewed that mere possession of the certificate will not be of any benefit once he converts to other religion because said certificate should be mandatorily in consonance with the Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

          While deciding the case, the Apex Court took reliance of the case of K.P Manu vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate (2015) which laid down three mandatory tests to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of a caste certificate. Those tests are:-

(i) there must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950;

(ii) there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and

(iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect according to us is very significant, and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not be possible.

 

The High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents holding that the appellant has ceased to be member of the Scheduled Caste – Court appreciated.

The supreme Court too confirmed the view of the High Court that the alleged offence under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, lack the basic foundation in respect of the allegations of wrongful restraint, causing hurt and criminal intimidation in the material collected during investigation.

Moreover statement of the witnesses were mostly hearsay and the absence of consistent ocular testimony identifying the assailants or manner of occurrence, does not advance the prosecution’s case – Court viewed.

 

Chinthada Anand Vs.  State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others  (Criminal Appeal No. 1580 Of 2026)

Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra And Justice Manmohan

Dated: 24 March, 2026.

Click for Judgment

Also Read: No examination of child witness at advanced stage of trial