Case: Mohammad Sadique Vs. Darbara Singh Guru

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.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. In paragraphs 51 and 52 in Kailash Sonkar (supra), on the facts of said case, this Court gave following conclusions: - “51. ……………(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 only 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.52. In these circumstances, therefore, this case fulfils the conditions required for being reconverted to Hinduism from Christianity in order to revive the original caste.” 21. In K.P. Manu v. Scrunity Committee for Verification of Community Certificate (2015) 4 SCC 1 ), one of the questions examined by this Court is – whether on re-conversion, a person born to Christian parents could, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste. Referring to various case laws, including those referred above, this Court disagreed with the finding of Scrutiny Committee that caste certificate issued to a person on the basis of the fact that though the great grandfathers of such person belonged to Pulaya community (i.e. Scheduled Caste), but he was born after his ancestors embraced Christianity and thereafter, reconverted into Hindu religion is not entitled to the Scheduled Caste certificate. Constitution Bench decision in Guntur Medical College (supra) and three-Judge Bench decisions in S. Anbalagan (supra) and Kailash Sonkar (supra) are referred to and relied upon in K.P. Manu (supra). 22. In the case at hand, admittedly the appellant was born to muslim parents. However, he has proved that his family members though followed Islam but they belonged to “Doom” community. It is settled law that a person can change his religion and faith but not the caste, to which he belongs, as caste has linkage to birth. It is proved on the record that the appellant was issued a caste certificate as he was found to be member of ‘Doom’ community by the competent authority, after he declared that he has embraced Sikhism, and he was accepted by the Sikh community. It is not disputed that ‘Doom’ in Punjab is a Scheduled Caste under Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The Scheduled Caste Certificate No. 6149 dated 25.08.2006 (Exh PG/2) was issued to the appellant by the competent authority, and accepted by the returning officer. Said certificate appears to have not been cancelled. What is shown on behalf of the respondent is that vide communication dated 17.11.2008 (Ext. PJ) State authorities informed and clarified to the Deputy Commissioner that members following Islam are not entitled to the certificate of Scheduled Caste, and if issued, certificates may be cancelled. But the certificate (PG/2) dated 25.08.2006 already issued in favour of appellant, is not cancelled, which he obtained after his conversion to Sikhism. It is proved on the record that the appellant embraced Sikh religion on 13.04.2006, and got published the declaration on 04.01.2007 in the newspapers Hindustan Times (English) Exh.RA, and Ajit (Punjabi) Exh RB. Nomination for election in question was filed by him five years thereafter. The appellant has further sufficiently explained that since he was popular as a singer with the name – ‘Mohammad Sadique’ as such without changing his name, he accepted the Sikhism and followed all rites and traditions of Sikh Religion. 23. It is not essential for anyone to change one’s name after embracing a different faith. However, such change in name can be a corroborating fact regarding conversion or reconversion into a religion/faith in appropriate cases. Also it is not necessary in law that entire family of a person should convert or reconvert to the religion to which he has gone. RW-5 Mohammad Sadique has stated that he not only followed Sikh traditions, he never offered Namaz, nor observed Roza nor went to Haj. It is also relevant to mention here that PW-7 Darbara Singh Guru (respondent-Election Petitioner) in his cross-examination admits that he did not raise any objection at the time when nomination papers were filed by the appellant.24. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the High Court has erred in law, by ignoring the above facts on the record, and giving importance to form of declaration, and the interview said to have been given by appellant to PW 6 Gulzar Singh Shaunki, author of book - “Sada Bahar Gayak – Mohammad Sadique : Jeevan Te Geet” (Exh.PK). Statement of the appellant RW-5 regarding conversion to Sikhism, is fully corroborated by RW-11 Darshan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of village Kupkalan, RW-6 Rachhpal Singh, Secretary of Gurudwara Sahib Kupkalan, RW-9 Ms. Sukhjeet Kaur, co-singer in Gurudwara, and RW-14 Sant Shamsher Singh Jageda, who presented ‘Saropa’ to the appellant. 25. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, as above, and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Guntur Medical College v. Y. Mohan Rao (1976) 3 SCC 411 ), S. Anbalagan v. B. Devarajan (1984) 2 SCC 112 ), and Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi (1984) 2 SCC 91 ), in our opinion, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court cannot be upheld.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]23. It is not essential for anyone to changename after embracing a different faith. However, such change in name can be a corroborating fact regarding conversion or reconversion into a religion/faith in appropriate cases. Also it is not necessary in law that entire family of a person should convert or reconvert to the religion to which he has gone. RW-5 Mohammad Sadique has stated that he not only followed Sikh traditions, he never offered Namaz, nor observed Roza nor went to Haj. It is also relevant to mention here that PW-7 Darbara Singh Guru (respondent-Election Petitioner) in his cross-examination admits that he did not raise any objection at the time when nomination papers were filed by the appellant.24. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the High Court has erred in law, by ignoring the above facts on the record, and giving importance to form of declaration, and the interview said to have been given by appellant to PW 6 Gulzar Singh Shaunki, author of book -r Gayak – Mohammad Sadique : Jeevan Te(Exh.PK). Statement of the appellant RW-5 regarding conversion to Sikhism, is fully corroborated by RW-11 Darshan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of village Kupkalan, RW-6 Rachhpal Singh, Secretary of Gurudwara Sahib Kupkalan, RW-9 Ms. Sukhjeet Kaur, co-singer in Gurudwara, and RW-14 Sant Shamsher Singh Jageda, who presentedour opinion, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court cannot be upheld.