Case: Kailash Sonkar Vs. Smt. Maya Devi

herself to Hinduism voluntarily and with full publicity, making no secret of this fact. A letter appearing at page 22 of the Paperbook shows that she accepted Hindu religion with all its customs and rites voluntarily. The relevant part of the letter reads thus :I am prepared to own Hindu religion with all sincerity and to follow all its customs and rites.Today on November 6, 1976 I am fully major. Hence the above decision is of my own wherein no external interference exists.44. Immediately thereafter she was married to one Jai Prakash Shalwar and the marriage certificate dated November 14, 1976 fully corroborates this fact (page 24 of the Paperbook). The marriage certificate states that the marriage of Maya with Jai Prakash was performed on November 6, 1976 in Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur according to vedic rites. Another certificate issued by the Secretary of the Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur is also to the same effect. The aforesaid documents are amply corroborated by the oral evidence led by the respondent.45. The evidence of Darshanlal Dharmak deserves special mention because this witness was a prominent member and President of the Katia community for the last two-and-a half years. The witness goes on to state that the marriage was celebrated in the presence of 80 persons of his community, including elderly people and his presence at the marriage clearly indicates that the community had fully accepted the respondent back to her caste. The marriage was followed by a reception 3-4 days later which was attended by this witness also and at that time nobody raised any objection about Maya as not belonging to the Katia community. The witness further states that he had gone to the house of the respondent and that members of the community had come to celebrate the birthday of her child.46. It would appear from the evidence of Bhaiyalal Nag, another witness produced by the respondent, that there was a Katia Samaj Sanstha in Madhya Pradesh which was registered under the Societies Registration Act and the witness was the Vice-President of this organisation. He states that Jai Prakash was known to him and belonged to his caste and that he was married to Maya Devi. He further states that no objection was raised in the Organisation about this marriage. He further stated that Maya Devi had been attending number of marriages in his caste. He makes a very stark statement which is fully supported by the Abhinandan Patra and his statement may be extracted thus :We mentioned her in this Abhinandan Patra as belonging to Katia caste as we were proud as she was the first M.L.A. in our caste.47. Ex. D-1A is the Abhinandan Patra given to Maya Devi some time in the year 1977-78, i.e. 3 years before the elections. Furthermore, there is the evidence of Keshav Prasad Pathak which is rather important. His evidence shows that a joint application was made by the respondent and her husband regarding their consent to the marriage. He further stated that before the parties are married, if either of them is not a Hindu then he is first converted to Hinduism (Shudhikaran) by religious rites performed in accordance with the Arya Samaj rites. He proves the applications given by the respondent and her husband (Ex. P-8 and 9). He has further stated that the marriage ceremony is usually performed before the members of the Executive Committee of the Arya Samaj. He further defines the term Shudhikaran to mean "Convert a non-Hindu to Hinduism". He goes on to say that the marriage was celebrated at the Arya Samaj according to vedic ceremony which included Saptapadi and Havan.48. The appellant himself in his statement admitted that in Jabalpur there are five-six thousands people of Katia caste. He further admitted that he did not make any enquiries about the parents or the place of residence of Elizabeth, mother of the respondent. He further admits at page 87 of the Paperbook that in 1978 he was taken by Shri Dharmak as chief guest in the conference of Katia Samaj. A suggestion was made to him that he was present when the Katia community honoured the respondent on her victory in the election. Reading in between the lines of his evidence it is clear that he was fully aware that the respondent had been reconverted to Hinduism and had been accepted by the Katia community.49. On a full and complete appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, the following conclusions are inevitable :(1) That the respondent was born of Christian parents and was educated in various schools or institutions where she was known as a Christian,(2) That 3-4 years before the election, the respondent was reconverted to Hinduism and married Jai Prakash Shalwar, a member of the Katia caste, and also performed the Shudhikaran ceremony,(3) That she was not accepted but also welcomed by the important members, including the President and Vice-President, of the community,(4) There is no evidence to show that there was any bar under the Christian religion which could have prevented her from reconverting herself to Hinduism,(5) That there was no evidence to show that even her parents had been Christian from generation to generation.50. In these circumstances, therefore, this case fulfils the conditions required for being reconverted to Hinduism from Christianity in order to revive the original caste.51. Under clause (3) of the 1950 Order only two conditions are required for being eligibile for election to a reserved constituency -(a) that the candidate should not profess a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion, and(b) that the candidate is a member of scheduled caste as shown in the schedules.52. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the Katia caste is mentioned as a scheduled caste in Part IX of the 1950 Order and shown at serial number 29.53. Having regard to the circumstances discussed above, it cannot be said that at the time when the respondent filed her nomination papers, she was not a member of the Katia caste.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. In our opinion, there is one aspect which does not appear to have been dealt with by any of the case discussed by us. Suppose, A, a member of the scheduled caste, is converted to Christianity and marries a Christian girl and a daughter is born to him who, according to the tenets of Christian religion, is baptised and educated. After she has attained the age of discretion she decides of her own volition to re-embrace Hinduism, should in such a case revival of the caste depend on the views of the members of the community of the caste concerned or would it automatically revive on her reconversion if the same is genuine and followed by the necessary rites and ceremonies ? In other words, is it not open for B (the daughter) to say that because she was born of Christian parents their religion cannot be thrust on her when after attaining the age of discretion and gaining some knowledge of the world affairs, she decides to revert to her old religion. It was not her fault that she was born of Christian parents and baptised at a time when she was still a minor and knew nothing about the religion. Therefore, should the revival of the caste depend on the whim or will of the members of the community of her original caste or she would lose her caste for ever merely because fortunately or unfortunately she was born in Christian family ? With due respect, our confirmed opinion is that although the views of the members of the community would be an important factor, their views should not be allowed to (sic) a complete loss of the caste to which B belonged. Indeed, if too much stress is laid on the views of the members of the community the same may lead to dangerous exploitation. Perhaps, this factor was present in the mind of Bhagwati, J., who delivered the leading judgment in a later decision of this Court G. M. Arumugham v. S. Rajagopal ((1976) 3 SCR 82   : (1976) 1 SCC 863  ) where, speaking for the Court, he made the following observations : (SCC pp. 871, 872, 875; paras 9, 10 andis sufficient to state that originally there were only four main castes, but gradually castes and sub-castes multiplicity as the social fabric expanded with the absorption of different groups of people belonging to various cults and professing different religious faiths. The caste system in its early stages was quite elastic but in course of time it gradually hardened into a rigid framework based upon heredity .... But that immediately raises the question : what is a caste ? When we speak of a caste, we do not mean to refer in this context to the four primary castes, but to the multiplicity of castes and sub-castes which disfigure the Indian social scene ... A caste is more a social combination than a religious group.In our opinion, the main test should be a genuine intention of the reconvert to abjure his new religion and completely dissociate himself from it. We must hasten to add here that this does not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a cover to gain mundane worldly benefits so that the reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a particular purpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mastery. The reconvert must exhibit a clear and genuine intention to go back to his old fold and adopt the customs and practices of the said fold without any protest from members of his erstwhile caste. In order to judge this factor, it is not necessary that there should be a direct or conclusive proof of the expression of the views of the community of the erstwhile caste and it would be sufficient compliance of this condition if no exception or protest is lodged by the community members, in which case the caste would revive on the reconversion of the person to his old religion.In our opinion, when a person is converted to Christianity or some other religion the original caste remains under eclipse and as soon as during his/her lifetime the person is reconverted to the original religion the eclipse disappears and the caste automatically revives. Whether or not the revival of the caste depends on the will and discretion of the members of the community of the caste is a question on which we refrain from giving any opinion because in the instant case there is overwhelming evidence to show that the respondent was accepted by the community of her original Katia caste. Even so, if the fact of the acceptance by the members of the community is made a condition precedent to the revival of the caste, it would lead to grave consequences and unnecessary exploitation, sometimes motivated by political considerations. Of course, if apart from the oral views of the community there is any recognised documentary proof of a custom or code of conduct or rule of law binding on a particular caste, it may be necessary to insist on the consent of the members of the community, otherwise in normal circumstances the case would revive by applying the principles of doctrine of eclipse. We might pause here to add a rider to what we have said, i.e., whether it appears that the person reconverted to the old religion had been converted to Christianity since several generations, it may be difficult to apply the doctrine of eclipse to the revival of caste. However, that question does not arise here.