Guntagani Sudhakar vs The Principal, Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi

Gangadhara Rao, J.—Since an important question of law arises in this Writ Petition, I propose to refer it to a Division Bench. I also propose to express my views on the matter. The question is, whether a person, whose father was originally a Hindu belonging to a Scheduled Caste, but converted to Christianity can be said to be professing Hindu religion and belonging to Scheduled Caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950? On 19-1-1974, the petitioner, Guntagani Sudhakar, applied for admission into the I year M.B.B.S. Course in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi, on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste i.e., Adi Andhra (Madiga) community. He also produced the Social Status Certificate issued to that effect by the Tahsildar, Udayagiri. On the basis of his application and the documentary evidence produced by him, he was admitted into the I year M.B.B.S. Course on 20-3-74, under the category of Scheduled Castes. Subsequently his social status was verified through the District Collector Nellore. The District Collector, after due verification, reported that Sri G Isac, the father of Sudhakar was not a Hindu, but a converted Christian, originally belonging to Adi-Andhra caste. He was reconverted to Hinduism on 2-8-1974. Therefore on the ground that Sudhakar sought admission falsely alleging that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, while in fact, he was a Christian, a notice to show cause as to why the seat allotted to him in the Medical College should not be cancelled under Rule 20 of the Medical College Admission Rules for 1973-74 was issued to him on 22-11-1974 by the Principal of Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi. Sudhakar submitted his explanation on 30-11-1974 stating that his father was a Hindu (Adi-Andhra) by mistake he was shown as a Christian in the records, and he was also a Hindu Adi-Andhra by birth. The principal was not satisfied with his explanation. He held that Sudhakar does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Madiga). He found that he was the son of a Scheduled Caste converted Christain. On the ground that he had made a false claim of belonging to Scheduled Caste and obtained a seat under the Scheduled Caste Category by furnishing wrong and fraudulent information, the Principal cancelled his admission under Rule 20 of the Medical College Admission Rules, by his order dated 29-8-75 Questioning that order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitions that even assuming that the father of Sudhakar, G. Isac, was an Adi-Andhra (Madiga) who converted himself to Christanity, still. It does not follow that his son Sudhakar, does not belong to Scheduled Caste. It is contended that even after conversion to Christianity, still, one may continue to belong to the Scheduled Caste.

In this connection, strong reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in C.M. Arumugam Vs. S. Rajgopal and Others, and The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others Vs. Y. Mohan Rao,

Under the Medical College Admission Rules, certain seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of this State is appended to those rules in Appendix II ''Madiga'' is one of the castes mentioned under the list of Scheduled castes, Rule 2 (C) (b) says that no candidate other than a Hindu including a Sikh can claim to belong to Scheduled Caste and no candidate can claim to belong to Scheduled Caste except by birth. On a plain reading of this rule, a candidate can claim belong scheduled caste provided he is a Hindu and he was born in the Scheduled Caste. The Scheduled Castes who converted themselves to Christianity and their children are shown under the Heading ''Harijan converts'' in Group C in Appendix III which gives the list of socially and educationally backward classes.

Under Clause 24 of Article 366 of the Constitution "Scheduled Cates" means such castes, races or tribes or parts of groups which such castes, races, or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution. Under Article 341, the President of India may, with respect to any State by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Article 341, the President of India has issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Order are in the following terms:

Subject to the provisions of their Order, the castes, races of tribes or part of, or groups within castes or tribes specified in Part I XIII to Scheduled to this Order shall, in relation to the States to which those parts respectively relate, be deemed to be scheduled castes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of that Schedule.

Notwithstanding any thing contained in Paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

Paragraph 2 does not speak of any religion; neither it speaks of caste by birth. But paragraph 3 says that if a person is not a Hindu or Sikh, he cannot belong to Scheduled Caste. It means, he must also be a Hindu. He need not be a Hindu by birth. What is essential is, he must profess Hindu Religion. Therefore, a Christian by religion does not belong to Scheduled Caste within the meaning of this Order.

In view of the President''s Order, 1950, Rule 2 (c) (b) of the Medical College Admission Rules that no candidate can claim to belong to Scheduled Caste except by birth is invalid, The other part of that rule that no candidate other than a Hindu including a Sikh can claim to belong to Schedule Caste is valid, since it is in consonance with paragraph 3 of the President''s Order of 1950.

Now, I will refer to the two Supreme Court decisions. In Ram Jiwan Singh Vs. Sis Ram and Another, the facts are as follows:--

S. Rajagopal, the 1st respondent, was a Hindu belonging to Adi-Dravida Caste. He was converted to Christianity in 1949. By January-February 1967 he was reconverted to Hinduism. The general election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly took place in 1972. There was a contest from 68 KGF Constituency which was reserved for candidates from Scheduled Castes. Arumugam the appellant and Rajagopal the 1st respondent filed their nominations. On objection by the appellant, the nomination of the 1st respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer holding that on conversion to Christianity the 1st respondent ceased to be Adi-Dravida and thereafter on re-conversion he cannot claim the benefit of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The election took place without the 1st respondent as a candidate and the appellant was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed Election Petition No. 3 of 1972 in the High Court of Mysore, challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that his nomination was improperly rejected. The Mysore High Court held that the nomination of the 1st respondent was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, and accordingly set aside the election of the appellant and directed fresh election. Against the Judgment the appellant Arumugam filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that in view of the earlier decision between the same parties in S. Rajagopal vs. C.M. Arumugam AIR 1969 Supreme Court 101 the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to agitate the question that he did not embrace Christianity in 1949. On the question whether on conversion to Christianity the 1st respondent ceased to be a member of the Adi-Dravida Caste, the Supreme Court held that it is a mixed question of law and fact which has to be decided on evidence. As to what is a caste, after referring to some decisions, the Supreme Court observed that castes are formed not only on community of religion but also on community of functions. It observed :

That the general rule is that conversion operates as an expulsion from the caste, or, in other words, the convert ceased to have any caste, because caste is predominantly a feature of Hindu society and ordinarily a person who ceased to be a Hindu would not be regarded by the other members of the caste as belonging to their fold. But ultimately it must depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and regulations whether a person would cease to belong to the caste on his adjuring Hinduism. If the structure of the caste is such that its members must necessarily belong to Hindu religion, a member, who ceased to be Hindu, would go out of the castes, because on non-Hindu can be in the caste according to its rules and regulations. Where, on the other hand, having regard to its structure, us it has evolved over the years, a caste may consist not only of persons professing Hindu religion but also persons professing some other religion as well, conversion from Hinduism to that other religion may not involve loss of caste because even persons professing such other religion can be members of the caste. This might happen where caste is based on economic or occupational characterists and not on religious identity or the cohesion of the caste an a social group is so strong that conversion into another religion does not operate to snap the bond between the convert and the social group.

In Paragraph 13, after referring to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, the Supreme Court observed,

that there may be castes specified as Scheduled Castes which comprise persons belonging to a religion and if that be so, it must follow a fortiori, that in such castes, conversion of a person from Hinduism cannot have the effect of putting him out of the caste, though by reason of Paragraph 3 he would be deemed not to be a member of a Schedule Caste.

(Emphasis is mine).

But the Supreme Court did not think it necessary to express any final opinion on this question in view of their finding on the other question that after re-conversion to Hinduism in January-February 1967 the 1st respondent was professing Hindu religion and satisfied the requirement of Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. The Supreme Court held that on reconversion to Hinduism, the 1st respondent could once again become a member of the Adi-Dravida Caste even assuming that he ceased to be such on conversion to Christianity, if the members of the Caste accept him as a member. It observed.

If a person who has embraced another religion can be reconverted to Hinduism, there is no rational principle why he should not be able to come back to his caste, if the other members of the caste are prepared to readmit him as a member. It stands to reason that he should be able to come back to the fold to which he once belonged, provided of course the community is willing to take him within the fold it is the orthodox Hindu society still dominated to a large extent, part-society still dominated to a large extent, particularly in rual areas, by medievalistic outlook and status-oriented approach which attaches social and economic disabilities to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and that is why certain favoured treatment is given to him by the Constitution. Once such a person ceased to be a Hindu and becomes a Christian, the social and economic disabilities arising because of Hindu religion cease and hence it is no longer necessary to give him protection and for this reason he is deemed not to belong to Scheduled Caste, But when he is reconverted to Hinduism, the social and economic disabilities once again revive and become attached to him because these are disabilities inflicted by Hinduism.

(Emphasis is mine).

Thereafter, after discussing the evidence on record, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was accepted as a member of the Adi-Dravida Caste after his reconversion to Hinduism. Consequently they agreed with the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

A reading of this decision shows that the facts are entirely different from the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court was more concerned with the question as to whether on reconversion to Hinduism, the 1st respondent therein became a member of the Adi-Dravida caste. They did not express any final opinion whether on conversion to Christianity the 1st respondent did not cease to belong to Adi-Dravida caste though prima-facie, they were not inclined to hold so. Even then, the Supreme Court never said that on conversion to Christianity, a person could still be considered to be professing Hinduism, so as to be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. On the other hand, the observations of the Supreme Court which have been underlined by me clearly show that the moment a person converts himself to Christianity, he ceases to profess Hinduism and consequently he would not be a member of a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of that Order. As I understand this decision, there may be cases where on conversion to Christianity, still a person can be a member of a Scheduled Caste. But it does not mean that he will still be considered a person professing Hinduism and a member of a Scheduled Caste. That is plainly inconsistent with the terms of Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. Therefore, this decision is of no assistance to the petitioner.

The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others Vs. Y. Mohan Rao, arose under the Rules for Admission into the Medical College in Andhra Pradesh, In that case. One Y. Mohan Rao applied for admission into Medical College. His parents originally professed Hindu religion and belonged to ''Madiga'' caste. They were both converted to Christianity. Mohan Rao was born to them after their conversion. Since, Under the Admission Rules, converts to Christianity are treated as belonging to Backward Class, when he applied for admission, he described himself as member of Backward Class, But he did not succeed in getting admission. Thereupon, he got himself converted to Hinduism on 20th September, 1973 by going through ''Suddhi'' ceremony. He produced a certification from the Andhra Pradesh Arundatiya Sangham stating that he had renounced Christianity and embraced Hinduism and was "received back into Madiga caste of Hindu fold". On the strength of that certificate, claiming to be a member of Madiga caste, the applied for admission into the Guntur Medical College and on the basis that he was a member of a Scheduled Caste he was provisionally selected for admission. Subsequently, he was informed by the Principal of the Medical College that his selection was cancelled as he was not a Hindu by birth. The Principal relied upon Note (b) to Clause- C of Rule 2 of the Rules for Admission to the M.B.B.S. Course issued for the academic year 1973-74. Thereupon, be filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the cancellation of his admission on the ground that Note (b), which required that a candidate, in order to be eligible for a scat reserved for Scheduled Caste should belong to Scheduled Caste by birth, went beyond the scope of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and was therefore, void and the Principal was not entitled to cancel his admission on the ground that he was not a Hindu or a member of a Scheduled Caste by birth. The Writ Petition was allowed by a single Judge of this Court holding that Note (b) was repugnant to the provisions of clause (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. The appeal preferred by the State against that Judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The State preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court. After referring to Article 15 Clause (4) Article 366 (24) Article 342 and the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1959, the Supreme Court observed

The Schedule to this Order in Part I sets the castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within castes or tribes which shall in the different areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh be deemed to be Scheduled Caste. One of the castes specified there is Madiga caste and that caste must, therefore, he deemed to be a Scheduled Caste. But by reason of cl. (3), a person belonging to Madiga caste would not be deemed to be a member of a scheduled caste unless he professes Hindu or Sikh religion at the relevant time. It is not necessary that he should have been born a Hindu or a Sikh. The only thing required is that he should at the material time be professing Hindu or Sikh religion. Now, note (b) was interpreted by the principal of the Medical College to require that a candidate, in order to be eligible for a seal reserved for Schedule Castes, should be a Hindu by birth. This interpretation was patently erroneous because what Note (b) required was not that a candidate should be a Hindu by birth but that he should belong to a Scheduled Caste by birth. But even this requirement that a candidate in order to be eligible for a reserved seat would be a member of a Scheduled Caste by birth went beyond the provision in Cl. (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1959 and was rightly condemned as void and no reliance was placed upon it on behalf of the State.

While dealing with the argument advanced on behalf of the State that when Mohan Rao was converted to Hinduism he did not automatically become a member of Madiga Caste, but it was open to the members of the Madiga caste to accept him within their fold and it was only if he was so accepted that the could claim to have become a member of the Madiga caste, the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph 5.

Now before we proceed to consider this contention, it is necessary to point out that there is no absolute rule applicable in all cases that whenever a member of a caste is converted from Hinduism to Christianity he loses his membership of the caste. This question has been considered by this Court in C.M. Arumugam Vs. S. Rajgopal and Others, and it has been pointed out that ordinarily it is true that on conversion to Christianity a person would cease to be a member of the caste to which he belongs, but that is not an invariable rule. It would depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and regulations. There are some castes, particularly in South India, where this consequence does not follow on conversion, since such castes comprise both Hindus and Christians. Whether Madiga is a caste which falls within this category is a debatable question. The contention of the respondent in this writ petition that there ate both Hindus and Christians in Madiga caste and even after conversion to Christianity, his parents continued to belong to Madiga caste and he was therefore, a member of Madiga right from the time of his birth. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal to decide this question. We may assume that on conversion to Christianity the parents of the respondent lost their membership of Madiga Caste and that the respondent was, therefore, not a Madiga by birth.

This decision also is distinguishable on facts. By the time Mohan Rao applied for admission for a second time he got himself reconverted to Hinduism from Christianity. The question that the Supreme Court had to consider was whether on re-conversion Mohan Rao became a member of the Madiga caste.

In Paragraph 3 of that Judgment the Supreme Court also emphasised the fact that by reason of Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, a person belonging to Madiga Caste would not be deemed to be a member of 3 Scheduled Caste unless he professes Hindu or Sikh religion at the relevant time. It is not necessary that he should have been born a Hindu or a Sikh. The only thing required is that he should at the material time be professing Hindu or Sikh religion. He need not even be born a Hindu by birth. These observations only emphasise the fact that a candidate cannot belong to Scheduled Caste unless he also professes Hindu religion so as to claim the benefit of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 When it was argued on behalf of the respondent in that case that there are both Hindus and Christians in Madiga Caste and even after conversion to Christianity his parents continued to belong to Madiga caste and he was, therefore, a member of Madiga caste fight from the time of his birth, the Supreme Court, held that it was not necessary for them to to decide that question in that appeal. They reiterated their earlier view that on conversion to Hinduism a person born of Christian converts would not become a member of the caste to which his parents belonged prior to their conversion to Christianity automatically or as matter of course, but he would become such member if the other members of the caste accept him as a member and admit him within their fold. Thus, this case also does not support the contention of the petitioner.

On the facts of this case, it is found that when the petitioner applied for admission into the Medical College his father was a Christian. It is only after the petitioner''s admission into the Medical College his father re-converted himself to Hinduism. It is not the case of the petitioner that he re-converted himself to Hinduism before he sought admission into the Medical College. Thus, on the date when he had applied for admission he was a Christian by birth. If so, it cannot be said that he was professing Hindu religion. I am of the opinion that a person professes Hindu religion when he is born a Hindu or when he is converted to Hinduism. I am not able to conceive of a third alternative. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioner was not professing Hindu religion when he applied for admission into the Medical College. Consequently, even if he was treated as a member of Madiga caste, even as a Christian that does not held him. He must also be professing the Hindu religion.

Apart from that, there is also difficulty in entertaining this writ petition. The rules for Medical College admission are not made under any statute. They are only administrative instructions. If so, the petitioner cannot file a Writ Petition complaining of their breach after the amendment of Article 226 of the Constitution. But it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his grievance is against the violation of the provisions of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. I do not think so. It is not a case Where the authorities have refused to give him the benefit of the order. In fact, he was given admission on his representation that he belonged to Scheduled Caste. It is only when they found on enquiry that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste, they have cancelled his admission therefore, there is no violation of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 much less of the provisions of Cl. (4) of Article 15.

Any way, I am referring the matter to a Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement. Since the admission of the petitioner into the Medical College has been cancelled after he had studied for nearly one year, it is desirable that the Writ Petition shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The papers may be placed before Honourable the Chief Justice for orders.

JUDGMENT

Chief Justice

This writ petition has been placed before us in pursuance of an order of reference made by our learned brother, Gangadhara Rao J., referring the writ petition to a Division Bench our learned brother felt that, since an important question of law arises in this writ petition, it should be heard by a Division Bench.

The question involved in this case is, whether a person, whose father was originally a Hindu belonging to a Scheduled caste, but converted to Christianity, can be said to be professing Hindu religion and belonging to a Scheduled caste within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Our learned brother felt that there was no violation of the provisions of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, much less of the provisions of clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. Our learned brother came to the conclusion that, though the petitioner was treated as a member of the Madiga caste, even as a Christian, he is not a person professing Hindu religion and, therefore, did not come within the purview of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. However, as we have stated above, in view of the importance of the question involved, he has referred the writ petition to a Division Bench.

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this case, it would be better to refer to the facts as appearing in the writ petition. On January 19, 1974, the petitioner applied for admission into the First Year M.B.B.S. course in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi. He contended that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste i.e. Adi Andhra (Madiga) community. He also produced social status certificate issued to that effect by the Tahsildar, Udayagiri. On the basis of his application and the documentary evidence produced by him, he was admitted into the First Year M.B.B.S., course on March 20, 1974 under the category specially reserved for Scheduled Castes. Subsequently, the petitioner''s social status was got verified through the District Collector, Nellore, who after due verification, reported that the father of the petitioner was not a Hindu, but a converted Christian originally belonging to Adi Andhra caste The father of the petitioner, according to the report of the District Collector, was reconverted to Hinduism on August, 7, 1974. On the basic of these materials placed before him, the Principal of Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi, came to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner had sought admission to the college by falsely alleging that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste though, in fact, he was a Christian. In view of that prima facie conclusion, a notice to show cause why the seat allotted to him in the Medical College should not be cancelled under Rule 20 of the Medical College Admission Rules for 1973-74, was issued to the petitioner. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on November, 30, 1974 stating that his father was a Hindu (Adi-Andhra) and had continued to be a Hindu, but by mistake, be was shown as a Christian in the records. It was further contended that the petitioner was also a Hindu (Adi-Andhra) by birth. The Principal was not satisfied with this explanation. He held that the petitioner did not belong to a Scheduled Caste viz., Adi Andhra (Madiga). The Principal found that the petitioner was the son of a Scheduled Caste member converted to Christianity. Holding that the petitioner had made a false claim of belonging to a Schedules Caste and had obtained a seat under the Scheduled Caste category by furnishing wrong and fraudulent information, the Principal cancelled the original admission granted to the petitioner by exercising the powers under Rule 20 of the Medical College Admission Rules. This order was passed by the Principal on August 20, 1975. The petitioner challenges that order of the Principal in these writ proceedings.

Clause (24) of Article 366 of the Constitution defines "Scheduled Castes" to mean such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such cates, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution. Article 341 (1) states "The President may with respect to any State or Union territorry and whether it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territorry, as the case may be". Acting under the powers conferred upon him by article 341 (1), the president issued the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, and we are concerned with Clauses 2 and 3 of that Presidential Order. Clause (2) provides "Subject to the provisions of this order, the castes, races or tribes or parts of, groups within castes or tribes, specified in Parts I to XIII of the Schedule to this order shall in relation to the States to which those parts respectively relate be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as regards members thereof, resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of that Schedule". Clause (3), which was at the relevant time, a part of this Order was in these terms, "Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste". Reading these two clauses together, it is obvious that, in order to be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste, a person must belong to one of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Schedule to the Presidential Order and must professess either the Hindu or the Sikh religion. Part I of the Schedule deals with the different Scheduled castes. ''Madiga is one of the castes which is considered to be a scheduled caste throughout the State of the Andhra Pradesh and under Clause (2), ''Adi-Andhra'' is one of the castes which is cognised as a Scheduled Caste in districts other than Telangana districts. The petitioner belongs to Nellore Dis. of which is one the districts outside the list of Telangana districts mentioned in Clause (2) of Part 1 of the Schedule to the Presidential Order, It may be mentioned that ''Arundhatiya'' is also one of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in Clause (2) of Part 1 of the schedule. We are mentioning this, because it is quite common for Adi Andhra'' in this part of the state to be described either as ''Adi Andhra or ''Arundhatiya.

So far as the legal position of members of Scheduled castes, who got themselves converted into other religions, is concerned, there has been a series of decisions both of the Madras High Court, which was the main High Court dealing with these problems in South India, and of the Supreme Court. The first of the decisions in this series which we will refer is the decision in Gurusami Nadar Vs. Irulappa Konar and Others, . The decision was rendered by Varadachariar J., and he held that a Hindu, who has become a Christian, can become a Hindu by reconversion. Varadachariar, J., after considering several decisions on the point, held that, among the community to which the individual concerned belonged, reconversion to Hinduism was probably quite as simple a matter as original conversion from Hinduism. At page 631 of the report, Varadachariar J. pointed out:

No particular ceremonies are prescribed for them by the Smrithi writers nor have they got to perform any Homas. One has therefore only to look to the sense of the community and from that point of view it is of particular significance that the community was prepared to receive Vedanadaga any defendant--5 as man and wife and their issue as legitimate.

In Goona Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedda Babu and Another Vs. Goona Sudarsanaswami and Others, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Mockett and Krishnaswami Ayyangar JJ. dealt with this point. Mocket, J. held that, although no gesture or declaration can change a man''s religion, but when on the facts it appears that a man did change his religion and was accepted by his co-religionists as having changed his religion and lived and died and was creamted in that religion, the absence of some formality cannot negative what is an actual fact. Krishnaswami Ayyanagar, J. who delivered the concurring judgment, observed.

Where on the evidence it is shown that in fact the Hindu Christian returned to Hinduism after contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife and remained and died a Hindu and was accepted as such by his community and coreligionists without demur and no evidence is led to show that the caste insisted on any rituals in such matters, the Court cannot treat him as having continued to remain Christian and his second marriage invalid on account of the absence of a ceremony. That society might got into a state of flux and confusion if a formal abandonment followed by the performance of expiatory ceremonies is not insisted on, is scarcely a second reason for the Court lending its support to maintain a social order in which the society concerned has itself lost faith.

It was pointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyangar J., that Varadachariar J., in Gurusami Nadar Vs. Irulappa Konar and Others, after pointing out that no particular expiatory ceremonies were prescribed in the community in question in that case, emphasised the necessity for looking to the sense of the community and considering whether it was prepared to receive back the convert into its fold. According to Varadachariar, J., a formal ceremony would not be insisted on except possibly in the twice-born castes. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J. also pointed out that Venkata Subba Rao J., in B. Ramayya Vs. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth and Others, had held that a formal conversion is not a prerequisite to a person becoming a Hindu.

In G. Michael Vs. Mr. S. Venkateswaran, Additional Secretary to Government, Public (Elections) Department, Fort St. George, Madras, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Rajamannear, C.J., and Venkatarama Aiyar, J., held:

Instances can be found in which in spite of conversion from Hinduism the caste distinctions might continue. This is some what analogous to cases in which even after conversion certain families and groups continue to be governed by the law by which they were governed before they become converts. But these are all cases of exception and the general rule is conversion operates as an expulsion from the caste; in other words, a convert ceases to have any caste. Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order proceeds on this general assumption and does not take notice of individual exceptional instances. When in any locality, in spite of conversion caste distinctions continue as a general rule, then the President evidently takes notice of it. The proviso to paragraph 3 of the Order illustrates this. Presumably on the information which must have been placed before the President he was not convinced that as a general rule the persistence of caste differences obtained in other parts of the Union in spite of conversion to other religions. It may be that the President was mistaken or his information was incomplete but it is not open to the Courts to sit in Judgment over his decision. It is clear that President has not arbitrarily specified a part or group which has no independent and objective existence. The Hindu section of a particular scheduled caste has certainly such an existence, though in exceptional cases some converts might still be members of the caste to which they belonged before conversion.

At page 478 of the report in paragraph 17, Rajamannar, C.J. observed :

But he (Mr. Venkatasubramania Aiyar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner) said that there were several cases in which a member of one of the lower castes 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 members of the caste who had not been converted. I am prepared to accept that instances can be found in which in spite of conversion, the caste distinctions might continue.

In paragraph 19, Rajamannar, C.J. observed:

I think the expression ''Profess'' is intended to have the same meaning as the expression "belongs to" and a person belongs to a religion either by birth or conversion.

Mere sympathy with or admiration for particular tenets of any religion by a person who was not born in it and who has not been converted to it would not bring him within the meaning of the expression "professing a particular religion." Equally if a person has been born into a particular religion and has not been converted to another religion the mere fact that he is of an unorthodox type or has no belief personally in the tenets of that religion would not take him out of the category of person professing that religion.

In paragraph 20, Rajamannar, C.J. pointed out:

The Hindu section of a particular scheduled caste has certainly such an existence, though in exceptional cases some converts might still be members of the caste to which they belonged before conversion.

So far as the Supreme Court decisions are concerned, the starting point may be considered to be the decision in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani Vs. Moreshwar Parashram and Others, In paragraph 49 of the report, Bose, J speaking for the Supreme Court, observed:

Looked at from the secular point of view, there are three factors which have to be considered (1) the reactions of the old body, (2) the intentions of the individual himself and (3) the rules of the new order. If the old order is tolerant of the new faith and sees no reason to outcaste or excommunicate the convert and the individual himself desires and intends to retain his old social and political ties, the conversion is only nominal for all practical purposes and when we have to consider the legal and political rights of the old body the views of the new faith hardly matter.

The question before the Supreme Court in that particular case was whether Mahanubhava tenets permitted a requdiation of caste of the converts. In paragraph 51 at page 244 of the report, Bose, J. observed:

We need not determine whether the Mahanubhava Tenets encourage a repudiation of caste only as a desirable ideal or make it a fundamental of the faith because it is evident that present-day Mahanubhavas admit to their fold persons who elect to retain their old caste customs. That makes it easy for the old caste to regard the converts as one of themselves despite the conversion which for all practical purposes is only ideological and involves no change of status.

In Punjab Rao Vs. D.P. Meshram and Others, the Supreme Court held that the word "profess" in the Presidential Order appears to have been used in the sense of an open declaration or practice by a person of the Hindu (or the Sikh) religion. At page 1194 of the report, Mudholkar, J. Speaking for the Supreme Court, pointed out that what Cl. (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 contemplates is that for a person to be treated as one belonging to a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of that Order, he must be one who professes either Hindu or Sikh religion.

In Ganpat Vs. Returning Officer and Others, Alagiriswami, J.: speaking for the Supreme Court, observed in paragraph 11 at page 423 of the report:

"But one knows that Hinduism through the ages has absorbed or accommodated many different practices, religious as well as secular, and also different faiths. One of the witnesses has described that he considered Buddha as the 11th Avtar. Indeed there are historians and sociologists who take the view that Buddhism disappeared from India not by any other means but by being absorbed into Hinduism. Therefore, if a certain community in a spirit of protest says that they would give up Hinduism and adopt Buddhism it is not likely to make much change either in their beliefs or in their practices, Centuries of habit and custom cannot be wiped out overnight while in the case of highly educated members who have chosen the new religion the change might make a difference in their attitude and perhaps in their habits and customs, to the vast majority it is likely to make very little difference." In C.M. Arumugam Vs. S. Rajgopal and Others, Bhagawati, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, pointed out in paragraph 8 at page 944 for the report. "The position is, however, different when we turn to the question whether, on conversion to Christianity, the 1st respondent ceased to be a member of the Adi Dravida Caste. The question is a mixed Question law and fact we do not think that a concession made by the 1st respondent on such a question at the stage of argument before the High Court, can preclude him from reagitating it in the appeal before this Court, when formed the subject-matter of an issue before the High Court and full and complete evidence in regard to such issue was led by both parties. It is true that this Court held in the earlier case that, on embracing Christianity in 1949, the 1st respondent ceased to be a member of the Adi Dravida caste but this decision given in a case relating to 1967 General Election on the basis of the evidence led in that case, cannot be resjudicata in the present case which relates 1972 General Election and where free evidence has been adduced on behalf of the parties, and more so, when all the parties in the present case are not the same as those in the earlier case".

At page 945 of the report, Bhagawati, J., observed:

But ultimately it must depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and regulations whether a person would cease to belong to the caste on his abjuring Hinduism. If the structure of the caste is such that its members must necessarily belong to Hindu religion, a member who ceases to be a Hindu, would go out of the caste, because no non-Hindu can be in the caste according to its rules and regulations. Where on the other hand, having regard to its structure, as it has evolved over the years a caste may consist not only of persons professing Hindu religion but also persons professing some other religion as well, conversion from Hinduism to that other religion may not involvesloss of caste, because even persons professing such other religion can be members of the caste. This might happen where caste is based on economic or occupational characteristic and not on religious identity or the cohesion of the caste as a social group is no strong that conversion into another religion does not operate to snap the bond between the convert and the social group This is indeed not an infrequent phenomenon in South India, where in some of the castes, even after conversion to Christianity a person is regarded as continuing to belong to the Caste. When an argument was advanced before the Madras High Court in G. Michael Vs. Mr. S. Venkateswaran, Additional Secretary to Government, Public (Elections) Department, Fort St. George, Madras, "That there were several cases in which a member of one of the lower castes who had been converted to Christianity has continued not only to consider himself as still being a member of the caste who had not been converted." Rajamannar, C.J., who, it can safely be presumed, was familiar with the customs and practices prevalent in South India, accepted the position "that instances can be found in which in spite of conversion the caste distinctions might continue," though he treated them as exception to the general rule.

The Supreme Court, in C.M. Arumugam Vs. S. Rajgopal AIR 1976 S.C. 393 referred to the decision in Kothapalli Narasayya V. Jammana Jogi 1967 30 Ele. L.R. 199 A.P where it was pointed out by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Casteism which has taken deep roots in Hindusim for some reason of other may not therefore cease its existence even after conversion. May be that the religion or faith to which conversion takes place, on ground of policy or otherwise, does not take exception to this social order which does not interefere with its spiritual or theological aspect which is the main object of the religion. That is why we find several members of lower caste converted to Christianity in Madras State still continue to be members of their castes. Thus a conversion does not necessarily result in extinguishment of caste and notwithstanding conversion, a convert may enjoy the privileges social and political by virtue of his being a member of the community with its acceptance". It was also pointed out by Bhagawati J.

It was again reiterated by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a subsequent decision reported in K. Narasimha Reddy vs. G. Bhupathi 1967 31 Ele L.R. 211 A.P. that survival of caste after conversion to Christianity is not an unfamiliar phenomenon in this part of the country and it was held that even after his conversion to Christianity, the elected candidate, who belonged to Bindla caste, specified as a Scheduled Caste, continued to retain his caste, since he never abjured his caste nor did his caste people ostracise or excommunicate him. The caste system is indeed so deeply ingrained in the Indian mind that, as pointed out by this Court, in Ganpat Vs. Returning Officer and Others, for a person who has grown up in Indian Society, it is very difficult to get out of the coils of the caste system" and, therefore, even conversion to another religion like Christianity, has in some cases no impact in the membership of the caste and the other members continue to regard the convert as still being a member of the caste.

In The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others Vs. Y. Mohan Rao, a similar question arose and it was in the context of admission to a Medical College, Bhagawati, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, held:

A person whose parents belonged to a Scheduled caste before their conversion to Christianity can on conversion one conversion to Hinduism, be regard as a member of the scheduled caste only if he is accepted as a member of that caste by the other members of the caste. On such acceptance he would be eligible for the benefit of reservation of seats for scheduled castes in the matter of admission to a medical college.

Interpreting the provisions of clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order 1950 and the rules for admission to M.B.B.S., in the Government Medical College, for the acidemic year 1973-74, the Supreme Court held that by reason of Clause 3, a person belonging to Madiga caste would not be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled caste unless he professes Hindu or Sikh religion at the relevant time and that it is not necessary that he should have been born a Hindu or a Sikh, The only thing required is that he should at the material time be professing Hindu or Sikh religion. It was pointed out by Bhagawati, J., that the requirement under Note (b) Rule 2 of the Rules for admission to M.B.B.S., course in Government Medical Colleges was beyond the provision of clause (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 and was void.

The Principal of Sri Venkateswara Medical College has filed a counter-affidavit in the instant case and he has pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the name of the father, as given in the application form of the petitioner, was G. Isaac and his father''s occupation was shown as "Elementary School Teacher (Higher Grade). In the application form, the petitioner had mentioned that he belonged to Adi-Andhra (Madiga) community and the address was given as "Duttalur, Udayagiri Taluk, Nellore District." In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that Sri G. Issac the father of the petitioner was an Adi-Andhra (Indian Christian). That was in the form of a School Certificate issued to Sri G. Isaac, the father of the petitioner, and it appears from this document that Sri G. Isaac was an Adi-Andhra a Christian convert. It may be pointed out that the fact the father of the petitioner got himself converted to Hinduism at Arya Samaji Madras, at the relevant date viz., the date of admission in 1973, is totally immaterial. But what is material is whether in 1973, at the time when the petitioner applied for admission to the Medical College, the petitioner was professing Hindu religion. It appears that even Christian converts from Adi-Andhra (Madiga) or Arundhatiya community were accepted as members of that caste, because all along even in the official document like school certificates etc., the petitioner was shown as belonging to Adi-Andhra (Madiga or Arundhatiya) community. In the material papers, which have been filed in this case, there is clear documentary proof available on the record of the caste to show that long before the controversy in this case arose, the petitioner and members of his family were treating themselves as followers of Hindu religion. Document No. 5 is the true copy of a School leaving certificate issued on October 11, 1965 i.e., at the time when the petitioner was about 9 years of age having been born on November 18, 1956. In this certificate, the petitioner was shown as belonging to Arundhatiya caste and belonging to Hindu religion. This certificate was issued at a time when there was no possible controversy about the religion which was being professed by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner himself. In view of this certificate, it is obvious, that as far back as 1965, the father of the petitioner thought that he might have been shown in earlier records as an Adi-Andhra (Madiga) Christian convert in 1965 the family was professing Hindu religion, because there was no particular occasion in 1965 to show that this family was belonging to Arundhatiya caste (Madiga) professing Hindu religion. The President of the Udayagiti panchayat Samathi has issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner was known to him for about 15 years prior to November, 1974 and that he belonged to Adi-Andhra community. In view of these material documents available on record it is obvious that, long before the controversy arose regarding the religion professed by the petitioner, the petitioner''s family was professing Hindu religion. It must be emphasised that what matters for the purpose of Clause 3 of the Presidential Order is the question of profession of a religion in the sense explained by the Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. He must belong to Hindu religion and must profess that religion in that sense. It is not uncommon, particularly in South India, for members of the Scheduled Castes, who do not belong to the twice-born castes of Hindus to continue to belong to the same community even after conversion to Christianity As pointed out by Varadachariar, J., no particular ceremony for conversion back to Hinduism is required in case of these castes, which are now included in the group of Scheduled castes. Therefore even if G. Isaac, the father of the petitioner was at one time shown as Christian, it is not unreasonable to infer that by 1965 atleast, he had started professing Hindu religion, and, therefore, the petitioner can be said to be a member of the Adi-Andhra (Madiga or Arundhatiya Community or caste) and professing Hindu religion since 1965 at least, All the requirements of the Presidential Order were, therefore, satisfied in this case and we, therefore, hold that, on the date on which the application was made by the petitioner in 1974, he was an Adi-Andhra professing Hindu religion. There is no necessity that he should have been an Adi-Andhra professing Hindu religion by birth.

Under these circumstances, the conclusion tentatively reached by our learned brother, Gangadhararao, J., and mentioned by him in his order or reference does not appeal to us. In view of the conclusion that we have reached, it is obvious that the order impugned in this writ petition must be quashed and set aside, because on the facts before us, it must be held that at the relevant time when he sought admission to the Medical College of which the respondent is the Principal, the petitioner did belong to a scheduled caste within the meaning of the Presidential Order. This writ petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Principal dated August, 29, 1975 which has been challenged in this writ petition is quashed and set aside. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner, Advocate''s fees Rs. 150.