SC status only for Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists, it ends with religious conversion: Top Court

As regards conversion of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) member, the court said that “unlike the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 does not prescribe religion-based exclusion. The determination of Scheduled Tribe status, therefore, cannot rest on conversion alone, but must turn on whether the claimant continues to possess and is recognised for the essential attributes of tribal identity, including customary practices, social organisation, community life, and acceptance by the concerned tribal community.”

It added, “Where conversion or subsequent conduct results in a complete severance from the tribal way of life and loss of community recognition, the foundational basis for Scheduled Tribes status will stand eroded. Conversely, where such attributes demonstrably subsist or are genuinely re-established and accepted by the tribal community, the claim cannot be rejected mechanically. The assessment in such cases is necessarily fact-specific and is left to the competent authority to decide in accordance with constitutional principles.”

It further said that “a person cannot simultaneously profess and practice a religion other than the ones specified in Clause 3 … and claim membership of a Scheduled Caste at the same time … The two positions are mutually exclusive and contrary to the Constitutional scheme.”

On reconversion back to Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religions, the top court said there should be unimpeachable proof of belonging to the notified caste, and of 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”.

There must be satisfactory and credible evidence establishing acceptance and assimilation by the members of the original caste, the court said, adding mere self-proclamation is not enough. “The burden of proving reconversion lies entirely on the claimant,” the court said.

The court said that “Christianity, by its very theological foundation, does not recognise or incorporate the institution of caste”.

The case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court arose from a complaint against some persons under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, by a Christian pastor, Pastor Chintada Anand Paul, who alleged that he was subjected to casteist abuses and threats to kill.

Quashing the charges, the HC said the pastor “cannot claim protection under the SC/ST Act since he had been openly professing Christianity and working as a Pastor for about a decade. The High Court was of the view that the caste system is not recognised in Christianity and that a person who has converted and continues to actively work as a Pastor and profess Christianity, cannot, in law, claim protection under the SC/ST Act.”

Paul contended that caste is a matter of birth and not of faith, and a change of religion does not wipe out the social identity and historical disadvantages attached to one’s caste.

To bolster his case, he relied on a 1977 order issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh, which said that mere change of religion shall not operate as a bar to Scheduled Caste persons from securing the benefits to which they were otherwise entitled prior to conversion.

However, the SC said that Clause 2 of the said government order states that only “non-statutory concessions’’ are being extended to Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity and Buddhism.