A Supreme Court verdict on reservation for Dalit converts to Christianity raises constitutional, legal, and social questions on caste and discrimination
Satya Narayan Misra
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court on 24th March has upheld the AP High Court order which denied protection to Chinthada Anand under SC& ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989, as he had converted to Christianity. Anand, who belonged to the Madiga Community of Andhra Pradesh converted to Christianity a decade back and was active as a pastor. He was being constantly abused by members of an upper caste community by his caste identity and threatened to kill him and his family.
The lawyers of Anand cited S3 of SC& ST Atrocities Act and S 341, 506 & 323 of IPC. They also invoked an AP Government order of 30th August 1977 which said that” a mere change of religion shall not operate as a bar to SC for securing benefits to which they were otherwise entitled to before conversion”.
Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Manmohan have summarily dismissed all these arguments by invoking Para 3 of Constitution (SC) Order, 1950 as per which’ no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste’. In this legalistic, literal interpretation, the court has skirted the complex reality of caste and its attendant discrimination. Surprisingly, they have also made no reference to the recommendation of the National Commission for Minorities headed by retired CJI Ranganath Mishra in 2007, where the majority of the Committee had recommended permitting Dalit who had converted to Christianity to avail of benefit of reservation.
The Constitution empowers the President in consultation with the Governor to notify castes, races, tribes and tribal community who will be deemed as SC or ST under Articles 341 and 342. These constitutional provisions are further buttressed by Constitution (SC) Order 1950, where it provides that” No person who professes a religion different from Hindu shall be deemed to be a member of a SC. “.
Sikhs were added to the category of Hindus in 1956 and Buddhists in 1990. This was in line with Explanation II of Article 25, added in 1971 as an amendment which included Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists within the panoply of Hindu religious institutions. The SC& ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was introduced to ensure stringent punishment for crimes like forced labour, denial of economic and social rights and caste based violence.
The Court harps on the word “profess” which is declaring one’s belief in a particularly religion and open avowed publically to support their conclusion. Since the appellant has been serving as a pastor for the past ten years ‘indubitably is professing Christianity’ he comes within the meaning of clause 3 of the SC order of 1950.The Court relies on Selva Rani Vs Special Secretary (2024) case where the court frowned upon the idea of a Dalit convert to Christianity trying to avail of benefits of reservation; as going ‘against the object of reservation and a fraud on the Constitution’.
Justice Mishra concludes that a person cannot profess and practice a religion other than ones specified in Clause 3 of 1950 order and claim membership of a SC at the same time. In respect of persons who reverts back to Hindu fold, the court has stipulated several conditions which must be cumulatively established like ‘credible evidence establishing acceptance and assimilation by members of the original caste ‘, before they can claim the benefit of reservation.
The detractors challenge the constitutionality of Para 3 of Constitution Reservation Order 1950 as they believe that it violates Article 14 and particularly Article 15 which enjoins upon the state not to discriminate on the ground of ‘religion, race, caste ‘. It also offends Article 25 which entitles every citizen ‘freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion ‘. The National Commission on Minorities headed by retired CJI Ranganath Mishra brought out how converted Christians continue to be identified with menial occupations like scavenging and sweeping. And how even after death they are buried in different burial ground. Atrocities committed on the Dalits are uniform irrespective of the religion they belong to. Yet persons originally of SC origin when converted to Christianity are deprived of the special protective provision, solely on the basis of religion.
The Sachar Committee & 2008 study documents show persistence of caste discrimination among persons who converted. The majority of the Committee recommended that Dalits who convert to Christianity should avail of reservation benefit and were of the view that change of religion is strictly a personal matter.
The Supreme Court in Soosai Vs UOI (1985) have acknowledged that to adjudge constitutionality of Para 3 of SC Reservation Order, there is a need for socio economic data to show that the Christian converts suffer from comparable depth of social and economic disability and similar levels of degradedness within the Christian Community. The Ranganathan Committee precisely tried to bring out the discrimination being faced by Christian converts. It is indeed sad that not only did the Modi government reject the report but the Solicitor General observed in the Supreme Court in 2023 that the report is flawed and ‘takes a myopic view of social milieu in India’. Evidence of social reality suggests that conversion rarely erase caste identity or its associated discrimination. Constitutional provisions and legal interpretation must recognise lived in realities while preserving fairness within the overall rubric of affirmative action.
A committee has been constituted in 2022 under the Chairmanship of retire CJI Balakrishnan to determine whether social and economic discrimination faced by Dalit persist after conversion. The long-delayed report is expected next month. Hopefully their detailed field study would unravel the reality of discrimination post conversion. We must remember that the present legal position does not align India with international jurisprudence viz ICESR, ICPR & UHE where caste and religion are forbidden for classification.
In the deeply polarised times that we live, issues such Dalit conversion must transcend narrow literal legalistic interpretation but recognise the under belly of socio economic deprivation that dot the Dalits.
(Satya Misra teaches Constitutional Law & is deeply involved in Development Studies. Views Expressed are Personal.)
