NEW DELHI, The Supreme Court has in a judgment held that religious conversion without any actual belief, largely intended to procure quota benefits, defeats the social ethos of the reservation policy and amounts to a fraud on the Constitution.
The judgment was based on an appeal filed by a woman from Puducherry, a Christian by birth, who sought conferment of a Scheduled Caste community certificate on the ground that she had embraced Hinduism. The court concluded that her claim to Hinduism was fuelled by an ulterior motive, to obtain government employment in the Scheduled Caste quota.
However, the court banked on a field verification that clearly revealed the registration of the marriage of her parents of the appellant under the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872. She had been baptised and regularly attended church.
The court said her claim to be practising Hinduism was at best “meek.” There was not even a single positive act, including conversion by adopting a procedure prescribed through the Arya Samaj, to prove her claim of conversion to a Hindu. Neither oral nor documentary evidence back her.
“India is a secular country. Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. One converts to a different religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation,” Justice R. Mahadevan, who authored the verdict dated November 26 for the Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Cancelling any Scheduled caste community certificate conferred to her in the past, the apex court said conversion merely to claim reservation in employment was a fraud played on the society too.
Referring to a Kerala High Court judgment, Justice Mahadevan quoted that a court cannot test or gauge the sincerity of religious belief or measure the depth of a person’s belief or whether it is an intelligent conviction or ignorant and superficial fancy. “But a court can find the true intention of men lying behind their acts and can certainly find from the circumstances of a case whether a pretended conversion was really a means to some further end,” Justice Mahadevan wrote.
(Manas Dasgupta)