KAILASH SONKAR v. SMT. MAYA DEVI

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 176

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, R.B. MISRA, M.P. THAKKAR

Case summary

Islam, the ·same involves loss of the caste unless the religion to·which he is converted is ·liberat e~1ough to permit the c:Onvertec t~ retain his caste or the family· Jaws by 1,vhich he was originally governed.

Judgment text

• KAILASH SONKAR V.. . SMT. MAYA DEVI ·• December 16, 1983 .... _ [S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, R. B. ,MISRA AND M. P. THAK"AR, JJ. J ! -r . Hindu la_w-Whether a Hindu on conversion to another religion loses the original caste. Convertee loses caste unless new religion accepts caste syste1n and pertnits conveTtee tO retain his original cas~e and family laws. During conversion or}ginal caste remains u1ider eclipse_. :. Ec/iys€ Disappears on. reconversion' to original religion. - On reconversian to. old religion-Whether' the original caste revive~Factors which determine revfral of odginal caste. . Representation of the People Act-Person born of C! tristia1t parents-J!

ducated and known as Christian-Reconverted to HiTidtiism voluntarily-Married a· 1'zemher of scheduled caste-Performed· shudhikaran ·ceremony-Acc~pted and welccilned by 1ne1n_bers of· th"at con1n1unity as schedided caste-Whether sμch person can contest state aSs~1nbly election as member 'o sched11led ·caste·from constituency reserved fof! ·inembers of scheduled castes. In the nomi. nation ·papers fiJed by the respondent· fOt contesting legislative ~ssembly elections in May. 1980. from a constituency which wa• resentd for. sche- · duled castes, she descri. bed herself as belonging 'to the sCheduled caste 'Katia'. Severai J? C"rsons raised objection that the respondent, being a'· Christian by birth, could not b6 ·treafed as a member Of the Scheduled caste. The Rsturning Officer rejected the objection not valid a_nd even on m. rrriage her ·caste could not reviVe because ca,ste was determined not by ma·rriage but by birth.

The res- • ·porident stated that she was never a- Christian nor was she bcirn a· Christian. She . also averred that eVen her father or mother were not Christians. On the other hand, she alwaYs remained a member of the Katia _caste and was accepted as such by the members of that community because bet: . Qlarriage with Jlti Prakash Shalwar was perfoi'med ac~ording to Hind~ rites· of Aryasa. maj sect arrd waS attended by n'um~er of 1nemb~rs of her c. istc and due ~ubliCity was given to the. marriag;e. :nismissing the appeal, HELD : It Cannot be said that at ihe time when the respondent filed her nomi. nation papeFS, she was not a merpber of . the Ka~ia caste.. [199 OJ ' A caste to which a Hindu belongs is essentially determined by birth and·if a Hindu is conv~r~ed to Chri~tianity or any other religion which does not·recogtlise I • KAILASH SONKAR v. ,MAYA ,DEVI . ·177 • caste, the_Conversion arnou. nts to a loss of the said caStc. Jn considering. whether . on conversion the loss .

of the casle is absolutc,. irrevocable so as 'not to revive ~ndcr ), a~y circu~~. ie'nce . t? e guiding -princiPI_es_ ~r~ ·: (a) ·where a persO_n· . be\Onging to a scheduled caste in converted to Chnst1an1ty or. Islam, the ·same involves loss of the caste unless the religion to·which he is converted is ·liberat e~1ough to permit the c:Onvertec t~ retain his caste or the family· Jaws by 1,vhich he was originally governed. There are a numb. er of cases. where men1hcrs belonging to a particular caste having been converte'd. _tO Christia~ity-. or even to Islam rct3. :ined _th_eir caste or family laws and . despite the new Order th~y wer~ permitted to be governed by their old laws. But this can happen only if the new religion is li. beral and tolerant enough to permft. such a course or· action, ~nd (b) Jn all other _cases; COnversion _to·Christianity or. Tslan1 Or any. oth~r religion Which docs not' accept the cas. te system and "insist te, -there is '.! - loss of caste on.. convcr. sion.

[190C-F; 191 B] The nopns and condil;ons undf'·r which a caste could -re. vive on reconversion - to the old religion as laid down by·the authorities of the High Courts and0 this Court . are; (1) where the . convertce exhibits by his 89tions and behaviour his cle l;E~LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3118 0f 1981. From the Judgment and Oi·der dated th~ 25th September, 1981 of the . Madhya Pradesh High. Court in ·E! ectioff Petit;on No. · 2 of 1980. . · U. R.. La/it and A. K. Sanghi for the Appellant. . G. B. Pai and Vin~et Kumar. for th. e Respondent. ; - The Judgmenf of the Court was delivered by .. "1. FAZAL ALI, J: By our Order dated October 20,. 1983', . we had· d. ismissed the ·appeal. ·we· now proceed to give o11r reasons for the ·same. • •. The victory of our long :1T:! r and guarantee flln ndu on conversion loses his c. aste. Although the . test laid down by this. case is · fully --- - ----.

supported by the original text of Hindu Law, it does not in so many words answer"the other side of the picture, viz. , if a Hindu after ' conversion to another religion· is reconverted to his original · fold, could his caste revive ? In fact, the case cited above was not a case of conversion from one religion to another religion or from one sect to another sect. By and large, the test laid down ·in that case can be usefully applied· with alterations an\! mocijfications . to suit the facts of a particular case in· judging the. question whether on con-• ·n version the caste is completely lost. The next case which throws. some Jighi on ·the question is S. Rajagopal v. C. M. Armugam Ors. '" In this case· what ha. ct happened was that. the appellant (before othe Supreme Coui,t) had filed his nomination papers for a constituency reserved for members, of the scheduled· caste. mentioned under the 1950 Order but he was defeated by respondent No. I of that case, whose petition. succeeded.

The contention in the petition was tha·t the appellant was not: a Hindu but a Christian and therefore not qualified to be a candidate for a ·constituency reserved for scheduled caste. The High ·Court found as a fact that the appellant had become a Christian in 1949 and his ·+ later: reconversion to Hi11duisn1 ren;ained u. nprovcd. This Courts agreeing with the High Court dismissed the appeal. One important feature of this case may be noied which would at once di•tinguish this ca~e from the facts of the present case. The question as to . · whether a Chdstian on being reconverted to Hinduism· would get back his caste did not arise at· all in that case because on the facts found, reconversion was not proved. Therefore, the question of caste being acquired or being· revived on reconversion to Hindusim did not fall for det~rmination and was left open. Even so, considering . Jasani's case and a number of other texts, Bhargava, J. made (I) [19691 I S. C. R. 254. .. • 186 SUPREM.

E COURt REPORTS [1984] 2 s:c. R. ·the following observations : "Consider1ng the· question of entry into the caste, .. Krishnaswami Ayyai1gar, J. , held.. that, in matters affecting the. well-be. ing or composition of a caste, tl1e caste itself is the supreme judgec It was on this principle 'that a reconvert to Hiridusim could become a member of the caste, if the. caste itself. as th~ supreme judge accepted him as a full mem~ . ber of it. " · ' While holding that if a person is reeonve1·ted to Hinduism and th~· commu'nity of the caste to· which he originally belonged accepts him, his caste would revive; nevertheless the question was left open. - Rajagopal's case (supra) merely reiterates what was held in Jasani':I case and does ·@t go . any further. . . . . · · . In.. our opinion: there is one ·~spect which does not. appear to. have . been deal. I with'by any of the cases. discussed. b)' ·us. Suppose, . . .. .

A, a lliember of the scheduled caste, is converted to Christianity ·and marries a Christian girl and· a dat1ghter is born. to . him who, according to the tenets of Christian religion, is b_apiised ·and educated. After she has attained the age of discretio1; ·she decides of'h! 'r own volition to re-embrace. \Jindusim, should in such a case re·v. ival of the caste d~pend on the views of the 1neniber. s o\ the. com': munity of the caste concerned or would it ·automatically revive on · her reconversion if the same is genuine and followed by the necessarri' rites and ceremonies ? In ·other words, is· it ·not open for B (the . . dirnih. ter) 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 d G. M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopa' & Ors.

caste does n,ot see fit to do, simply because in some other caste or some other community· It might be considered proper that ari expiatory ceremony should be performed. That· a Hindu h,aving reno. unced Hinduism once can revert to it scarecely. admits of doubt. ' A Similar view was expressed in G. Michael ·v. S. Venkat'e-· . _, swaran"'. which may be extracted thus : · "A member of one of the castes or sub-castes when he is converted to Islam ceases to be a mem. ber of any c:aste. He becomes jus~ a Mussalman find _his place iri Muslim society is . not determined by. the caste to which he belonged before his . conversion. Learned counsel also ·conceded · that generally this is so even·when th. ere has been a conversion · · to Christianity. But he said that there were se.

veral cases in which a member of one of ihe lower casl~s who has been converted to Christianity has continued not only to consider himself as still being a member of the caste, but has also been considered so by other men1bers of the caste who had· not been converted ...... But these are all cases of exception an~ the general rule is conversion operates as a11 expulsion from the caste; in other words, a convert ceases to have any caste: ~ . ·Thus, it ·was clearly hinted that in some cases even converts to Christianity could retain their original caste. Jn the case of Dippala Suri D9ra v. V. V. (! iri'" a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made the following observations : "Even if they come within the fold of Hiliduism, question would arise whether they have formed separate· sect among themselves, or they would bdong to the 4th ·class, or to 'the twice-born class .. , ... Jn ·order to prove . that he ceased to be a member of that tribe, there should ·be.

first of all,' evidence of intention, the reactions of the · old body and that .. of the new body. Viewed in t)le light . -\ of these observations, the evidence discussed abovt, in our opinion, falls short of the test.. . • . . . (I) AIR J95i Madras 474. (2) AIR 1958 A. P. 724. i90 ·"' .. [1984]2 S. ~. R. ... This casC'Jnercly lays down the. tri. plc test enunciated in Jasa;1i's case. · To the same· effect are· the decisions ·in the cases· of Wilson . 11 Re~de ~: C. S. Booth & Oi·s. , ) and B. Shvainsunder v. Slwnkar 'Deo • . · Vedal~nkar: & Ors. tz) •. .. Qa ·a careful consideration of the au;horities referr;d to above . . a~d the principles enuncialed by them, ·the position that emerges. ·... fnay be stat>d t[urn· : · . ' . It fa. true tl)at a caste to which a:Hindu. beloμgs is essentially . determin~d by birth and if [1 . Hindu is coverted to Christianity or . . any. other religion which does 110t recognise caste,. the conversion amounts 'to a loss of. the said •caste, - ·, .

Tl1~ question that arises for consideration is whc. ther the loss of ihe caste is absolute, irrevocable so as 119t torevive under any . ci~cumstafices? Tn _considering this· qucstiOn the courts. h·ave gGne into the history. of. the caste system and have·formulated the following guid. ing principles to . determine· this question. :~· · ' . (it) Where a person. belonging to a scheduledcastc is converted to Christianity or Islam, the same involves. IOss of the caste . . unless the religi~1i to which· tie is converted. is ll'beral enough to permit the·convertee . to. ·retain his caste or the family laws by whic]l he was originally goveri\ed. There· are.. a number-of cases where members belonging·to a paftiuclar caste havi~g been c - --is ·a com:110n feature of n1a11)r· c;onverts . to" a ne\v religion to belie\1c or have faith in the Saints belonging to other religions. For instance, a number of Hindus have faitl1 in the Muslim Saints, Dargah5, 1niatn- . .. . ·. . . ·(J) AIIU958 Assam 12.

8 (2) A! R. 1960 . Mysore 27. KAILASH SONKAR v. MAYA ~EV! (Fazal Ali; . J. ) 191 ~ . . badas which becomes ·a part of iheir. lives and some Hindus even adopt muslim names after the .. Saints but this does not mean~ that thay have discarded the old Order and gotthemselves converted to ~m . (b) In all other cases, conversion to C]1ristia'nity . or· Islam : or any other ·religion which does not . accept the caste system· a. nd insists on relinquishing ihe caste, there. is a 'loss of caste on convefL. sion. · . The other. i1;portarit ·question which is to be answered and which is really the controversy in tlie present case is :if after a person . is converted to a new religion - in the irislant ease, Christianity does hi; ~aste revive if he isreconverted to his old reiigion anci: if so, · ·under what circumstances? . As indfoated above, starting from . the Privy. Cotincil io ·the present-day, authorities of the High Courts.

and this Court have laid down certain norms and conditions under which a caste could revive. These conditions are as follows :- (1) ·where. the convcrtee ·exhibits by his actions and behaviour . .. his· clear intention of abjuring the new · religion on· his . . own volition· without any· persuasion _and-. is ·not_ motjVated b)' any benefit or gain, · ' (2) • whe. re tiic co~muniiy of the old order to which the con- . vertee 0riginally belongeil is ·gracious ·enough to . admit him to the miginal caste. either expresS"ly or' bf necessary intendment, and · ·(3) Rules of the ne\v. Order in permitting the convertee to join the new caste. Unless. the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled to the loss of caste· on conversion is. complete . and cannot be revived. In . our opinion, having regard to the present set,,ip and. the circumstances prevailing ...... in our modern ·society; it will be difficult to insist' on the second condition, vi. z. , the insistence on . the members of the co.

mmunity of the caste to admit the co. nvertee on reconversion to the original faith · ·because such a course of actio~ may lead to da~gerous consequences and fll-conceived exploitatfon. The curse and cancer of untauchability despite thirty years of social reforms still persist and no· quarter · should be given to. further persecution"of the. members -0f the sched). lled · castes who,as. w~ ofteμ find, are subjected to all kinds of indignities, I 192 slJPREM. E COURT REPORTS • [1984] 2 s. c. il. insuhs and arj lookeJ do\vn ~1pon as ~lavc;s or vassals, mcai;t n1er~ly to serve the members :of the higher caste. Jn' the case of Ganpa t v. Returniiig Officer & Oi·s. '1) this Court speaking through Alagiriswami, J. highlighted this particular aspect in the following words. ; '. 'The monstro. us curse of untouchability has. got· to ·be eradicated. It has got to. be eradicated . not merely by making constitutional. provisions or laws but also by .

eradicating it from the minds and hearts of men. For that it is even more in1portant that 111e1nbers of comffiuni~ies who ·. are untouchable• shoμld assert their self-respect an. d fight for . their dignity than that. members of the other communities should forget about it. - 1n our ·opinion, the tTiain test shoul. d be a· genuine intention of the reconvert to ·abjure his new re1igion and completely dissociate himself from it. We must hasten to' add here that this does ·not mean that the reconversion should be 011\y a ruse or a pretext or ~ oover to gain 'mundane worldly benefits' so that the reconversion ·becomes merely a show for achieving a particular vurpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mystery,. The reconvert must exhibit a clear and· genuine inteillion to go back to his old fold med adopt the cust~ms and practice; o( the said fold without any 'protest from . members· of his erstwhil~ caste. Jn order to judge this factor, it is E.

not necessary ·that there should be a direct or conclusive proof of 'the expression, of the. vie"\VS of the con1munlty' "Of thC erst\vhilc Caste and it would be sufficient compliance of this condition it no exception : ·' or protest is lodged by the community members, in \Vhi. ch case the caste \Vould r~vive on the reconversion . of the· person lo his. old. religion. · Another aspect. which one must not forget is that when a. child is born neither has he any religion nor is he capable of choosing one until he reaches: the age Of discretion and acquires proper un~~r standi;1g of the ·situation. Hence, the mere fact that the parents of a child, who were Christians, would in ordinary course . get the usual baptism certificate and perform. other cere1nci. nies \Vithout the· child knowing ·that is being done but after tlie child. has grown up and becomes fully mature and able to decide. his future, he ought 'not to be bound by what his parents may have done. Therefore, in such.

cases, it is the intention -Of the convertee which '~otild determine (1),(1975] 2 S. dnct or rule of law· binding . on . a particular caste, it may be ·necessary to insist on . the consent of the memb~rs of the conlmunity, othet:\vise . in norm. af i£ircurnstances the caste would iovive by applying the principles of ,d. octrine of eclipse. We might pause here to add a rider to what \Ve have said", ·i. e. ; where it appears tliat the person reconverted to the old religion had been c0t1verted 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. ·Coming now to the facts and evidence of the present case the position. may be briefly stated-as. follows : Th' appellant,· an M. A. , LL. R from Ja. balpur University had contested election. from . the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha (here- · • . · inafter referred to as. 'Yidhan Sabha) from Legislative · Assembly constitu1mcv No.

195. in the general election of 1977 as a Janata Party ·candidate which was reserved for S. cheduled "caste under Art. 332 of the . Constitution being item No. :l'O of Part IX-Madhya Pradesh of the 1950 Order: He was declared elected defeating his nearest rival. can! lidate, ·orie Rarnprasad Choudhary, a Congress candidate. The Vidhan S~bha was, however, dissolved in February 1980 after which general elections for all the. constituencies were to be held afre. fu, as. notified in the Gazette, in the month of May 1980. The last date. for filing nomiuation papers was. 2. 5. 1980, the date of scrutiny was 3. 5. 80 and the polling took place on 31. 5. 80. The results were declared. on. 2,6. &0: In thi. s election, ·the appellant submitted ·his nomination papers as. an Independent candidate from constituency No. 195 (Jabalpur East) and was opposed by Smt. Maya Devi Shahvar j (hereinafter referred to as 'Maya Devi') who filed her nomination \ p~pers as a Congress (I) cadnidate.

She described herself as belonging to the scheduled caste 'Katia' which is meniiol1ed. 1t. seri~l No. 29 . Of Part IX-Madhya Pradesh of the 19SO Order. Jn view ofthe short and narrow compass of this appeal we are not concerned with other candidates.. Jt may be mentioned that. originally the C! \Ste 'Katia' was·. not included in the list ·. ,r scllcduled castes \ill the year 1977 but by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tl'ibes Order (Amendment) tj. ct, 1976 (Act . No. 108 of 1976) the schedule was aniended and· replaced by a new Schedule in which· Kalfa ca;te was includded as a. schedukd eagle. and· sh0wn at serial No. 29. · .. ft appC;rrs that at the ti~e of the scrutiny of the nomination 7 papers of Maya Devi, several persons raised objection. that she, being a Cl1ristian by birth, could not be treated as a member of the . scheduled caste and therefor p:\rties have adduced evidence· in support of their cases. One important fact which )llHY be noted here is that.

the father of the r~spondent. - John \yeo. ;Jey- who itccording "to Maya Devi was John W:sley Singh, in spite. of being cited' as· a witness did not enter ~ . the witn'" box to throw light on the origin of the religion qf the respondent and a. huge Capital has been tnade of the non-appearance· of the· said \Vitncss. -;hich ac. cordii~·g·to the appellant is ,the strongest· ~ possible circumstance to· discredit the case of the respondent. . .. It is true that the father of. the respondent was not examined as H. a witness but having regard to the naiure of the documents produced · . . . . by the par\j;s the m:ere fact that Johμ Wesley was not examined. as a witness is not sufficient to throw the case of '. the respondent abr. ard. \ .. It is also true that the respondent was ill-advised to· deny the 'entire· cnse . of the appellant by makihg an averment that she was . not born . of Christian parents at all. We would; therefore, take it as established.

that the respondent was undoubtedly born of Chdstian parents. That by itsel,f does not advanee the case of the appellant any further because. . if it is proved that she' was voluntarily recoriverted to l:linduism then according to th~ law referred to us and. applied to the facts of the.. present' case on reconversion her original. caste would automatiCaJly revive. ·We would. givS" a brief summary of ihe nature of the evidence. prod. uced b;,' the parties. dn this . limited question. · To begin ~ith the appellant has relied· on the birth certificate (Ex. P-il) which. shows that a female child wa. s bom to John Wesley's . wife. on· 4. 6. 1947. ' It is•also clearly mentioned ,thereir. that John Wesley was a Christian. This was followed by ~ baptism certificate ;Y which shows . that sh,c ·was baptised a~cording to the religious cere- • .. monies of the Christians.. The appellant also . produced a Church mombership certificate to show.

L'1at ·Maya· Isabella John Wesley (respondent) was baptised and admitted as a rne. mbcr of the City Mothodist Church in Southern Asia at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The school transfer certificate dated 6. G. 1956 shows that Maya lrnbeJla John Wesley was a:Christian and. remained a student of Peeli Kothi J. , Qirls;Primary School, 1abalpur from 1. 7. 1952 to 30. 4. 1956, and her date of' birth iii this certificate has been shewn· as 4. 6. J 947 which fully tallies with her 'birth cer:tificate. In view of the· overwhelming~ evidence: referred to ;bove; it is no'. necessary for :l's to consider ·the. t . oral and documentary evidence which cohclus1ve1y proves -(1) that the parents of the respondent were Christians. · and (2) that after her · birth' she got faptised and remained a Chr;stian, and therefore it . cannot . be. de. nied that the respondent· was born a. Christian andin -f this view of the matter the moment she entered the fold of Christianity,·.

· her original•caste was completely lost. The respondent in her anxiety to succeed has overstated her case by wrongly aJleging that slie. was ·never born of Christian parents or that her parents were not. Christians, ~ a ·. fact. which is cornpletely falsified by the oral and. d<icuri]entary. evidence pro. duced by the appellant.. Accepting, therefore, the evidence led by th. e appellant, the vital' 'question for determination in this. case remains as to . whether. or not the respondent was' voluntarlly ·reconverted to Hinduism and thereupon her caste revived. There' 'is. ~ clear and. unimpeachable · ... KAiLASH SONKAR v. MAH D~VI (Fatal. Ali, J. ) IQ? evidence to show that the respondent . had reconverted herself to Hinduism voluntarily and with full publicity, making no secret of this fact. · A Jetter, appearing ai 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 ai1d to follow all its customs and rites. " Today, on 6. 11. 76. I am fully major. · Hence the above decision is of my own wherein no extcrnal. intetforence exi. sts. " Immediately thereafter she was. married to one Jai Prakash Shalwar and the marriage certificate dated 14. 11. 76 fully corroborates. this fact {page 24 of the Paperbook): . The . Marriage certificate states· . that the marriage of Maya Devi with Jai Prakash was• performed · on 6. 11. 76 in Arya Samaj Gorakhpur according to vedic rites; Another . certificjlte issued, by the . Secretary:of the Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur is also to the sa,;ne effect. . The aforesaid documents are amply corroborated by the oral evide11ce led by the respondent. The evidence of Darshanlal Dharmak deserv~s special mention . because this witness was a prominent member and President of the Katia· community for the last two-and-a haJC years.

The witness goes on" t~ state that the marriage was celebrated in the presenc~ of . 80 persons of his community, including elderly people and his pre- \- sence at Jhe marriage clearly indicates that the c. of! 1munily had fuliy ... ·accepted the respondent back to her caste. The marriage was followed by a reception 3-4 days later which was attei1ded by this witness also and at that . time nobodyraised 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. fo celebrate the "birthday of her child. It would appear from. the evidence of Bbaiyalal. Nag,• another witness j'Jrod!! ced by the respondent, tl\at there was "·Katia Samaj ~ Sanstha in Madhya Pr~desh which was registered under the ·societies ~ Registration Act 11nc\ the w_itness was the Vice'President of this organisation... He states that Jai Pra.

kash 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 Organisaiiori '. \bout this marriage. H~ . further stated that. Maya Devi had been attendi~g number of marriages· in his caste. He makes a very stark statement which is 198 SUPREME C~RT REPORTS · [1984j 2 $. C. R. fully supported by the Abhinandan Patra and his. statement may be · extracted thus :. · . • "We menti<,ned her in this Abhinandan · Patra as 0 bel_onging to Katia cas'te as we were proud as she was the first M. LA.. in our. caste. · · · Ex. D-1. A is the·Abhinandan Patra given to Maya Devi some . ,.. time in the year 1977-78-, i. e. 3 years before the elections. Furthermore, the. re is the evidence of Keshav Pfasad. 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 a·re married, if either of them . is not a Hir;du then he is first converted to Hinduism (Shudhikaran) . by religio'us rites. performed in accordance with the Mya Samaj rites. He proves the applications. given by the respondent and her husba;1d 'f (Ex. P-8 and 9). He has further stated that the marriage ceremony' is usual:y performed before the members of the Execμtive C~mmittee ·o of the Arya Samaj: He further defines the term 'Shudhikaran to m2an '~Convert a non-Hindu to Hinduisn:i . He goes on to say that the marriage was celebrated . at the Arya Samaj according to vedic ceremony which included Sapla-padi and Haran, . '~ .. The appellant himself in his statement admitted that in Jabalpur there are live-six thousands peopJe of katia caste, He further admitted that he . did not make any enquiries alioui . the parents Pf the placc-j of . residence 0f Elizabeth, mother of the respondent.

He further I ·admits at page 87 of the ·Pa:perbook ·that in 1978 he. was taken by Shri Dh. annak as Chief· Guest in the Conference of Katia Samaj. A suggestion was ·made to hirn . that he was· present when the Katia t° 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 Ka. tia community. .. On a full and complete ·appraisal of the ~rat . and documentary "G evid~nce, the following conclusions are inevitable : I) That the respondent• was b9;n of Christian parents and ' was educ•ted in various schools or institutions where. she was known. as a Christian, ·. • 2) that 3-4' years before. the election, the . respondent was .. KAILASH SONKAR v. MAYA DEVI (f'azal Ali, J. ) ! 99 J.. reconverted to. Hinduisn1 and married Jai Prakash Shalwor, a member of the katia caste,'and also performed tire Sh~d! 1i- .

karan ce~emo~y, 3) that she was not only accepted but also. welcomed by the important. members, including the Presidrnt and Vice- President, of the community, • -! " ' . 4) tl-. ,re is no evidence to show that there was any bar under . the Christian i·eligion which could have prevented her ~---...... ; · . from rec\111verting herself to Hinduism. ... 5) that there was no evidence ·t~ show that. even her parents had been Christians from generation to generation. · In these circumstances,' therefore, thiS case fulfils the conditi0n~ required for being reconverted to Hi11duism from Christianity in . . order to revive the original caste. Under cl. (3) of the 1950 Order only two conditions are required · for being eligible for election·to a reserved constituency,- · (a) that the ·candidate' should not profc5S a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh rpligion, and· · ,. _.

(b) that the candidate is a member of scheduled caste as shown 'I in the schedules: in the instant case, it is not disputed that the Katia caste · is mentioned as. a scheduled caste 1n part IX of the 1950 Order and shown at serial Numbet'. 29. Having . regard. to the circu1nstances diSci. lsscd above, it cannot be said that at the lime when the respondent filed her nomination papers, she was not a member of the . Katia caste. For the reasons given above, the judgment of the High Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances with,out any order as to costs. • H. S. K. Appeal dismisoed ..