SC rules Scheduled Caste status lost on conversion to Christianity

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday held that a Scheduled Caste person can belong only to the Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist faiths, and that those who convert to other religions — Christianity in the present case — lose that constitutional and statutory protection.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan said, “…for a person to be recognised as a member of a Scheduled Caste, he must profess the Hindu religion or such other religions (Sikhism and Buddhism) as are expressly recognised under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.”

Advertisement

The Court made these observations while upholding the Andhra Pradesh High Court order quashing criminal proceedings initiated by Chinthada Anand, who claimed to belong to the Scheduled Caste Madiga community despite having converted to Christianity and serving as a pastor. Anand had filed a complaint against six persons under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Indian Penal Code.

The Court held that once the appellant converted to Christianity, the caste status he had earlier enjoyed as a member of the Madiga community stood eclipsed in the eyes of the law.

Noting that Anand had converted to Christianity and was functioning as a pastor—and that it was not his case that he had reconverted or been accepted back into the Madiga community—the judgment, authored by Justice Mishra, stated: “Once the appellant (Chinthada Anand) converted to Christianity, the caste status which he earlier enjoyed as a member of the Madiga community stood eclipsed in the eyes of law.”

Rejecting Anand’s contention that caste status is determined solely by birth and continues despite conversion, the Court reiterated that recognition as a Scheduled Caste is contingent upon professing one of the religions specified under the 1950 Order.

The Court also observed that Christianity, by its theological foundation, does not recognise or incorporate caste distinctions. Referring to Christian doctrine, it noted that the New Testament emphasises equality among all believers.

Endorsing the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court further noted that the allegations of wrongful restraint, hurt, and criminal intimidation were based solely on Anand’s statement, with no independent witness attributing any specific overt act to the accused persons.