Conferment Of Scheduled Caste Status To One Who Is Christian A Fraud On Constitution: Madras High Court Allows DMK Member’s Plea

The Madras High Court held that the conferment of Scheduled Caste (SC) communal status to the one who is Christian is a fraud on the Constitution.

The Madurai Bench allowed a Writ Petition filed by V. Iyyappan, DMK party member seeking to direct the concerned authorities to declare V. Amutha Rani, AIADMK member as disqualified from the post of the Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

A Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed, “In the given circumstances, the conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the 4th respondent, who is a Christian by religion, is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution. In fine, the writ petitioner succeeds and there will be a concrete direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the fourth respondent as disqualified from the post of Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari district, who is elected in a post reserved for Scheduled Caste.”

The Bench was of the view that unravelling the complexities of conversion has become necessary for the purpose of solving the legal problem, which has stemmed up from the great harvest of faith in the district of Kanyakumari.

Senior Advocate B. Saravanan appeared for the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General (AAG) P. Veera Kathiravan appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

A representation was made by the Petitioner (Iyyappan) seeking to disqualify the Respondent (Amutha Rani) as Councillor under Section 50(1) (ddd) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The Petitioner contested in the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Election in 2022, as DMK party candidate and was elected as the member of the Theroor Town Panchayat from Ward 8, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (general). The Respondent contested as AIADMK party candidate from Ward 2, which was reserved for women (general) and she was also elected. As per the Government Order, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election Department), the post of the Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat was reserved for SC (general).

The indirect election for the post of the Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat was held in March 2022. While the Petitioner submitted his nomination, to his shock and surprise, the Respondent also filed a nomination claiming that she also belongs to the SC community. However, admittedly though she originally belonged to the SC community, later she converted to Christianity at the time of her marriage along with her husband and her marriage was solemnized in 2005, according to Christian rites and customs. The Petitioner condemned that, it is a settled position of law that once a person converts to any religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism, he/she cannot claim the benefits of reservation given for the SC community.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “To ensure the victory of the then ruling party, it is shell shocking, by the manner in which the Member Secretary, District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Office, Tirunelveli District, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.H1/DADTNV/24/2024 dated 20.05.2025, had concluded his enquiry favouring the 4th respondent violating the extant constitutional mandate and rule of law in this regard.”

The Court remarked that having voluntarily embraced Christianity, the Respondent cannot blow hot and cold, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of 'public employment'.

“She cannot identify herself a 'Hindu' after solemnization of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The preamble of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, itself would mirror the position of law that the said Act is : “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the solemnization in India of the marriages of Christians”, it added.

The Court said that the Respondent’s socio-legal personality by her voluntary marriage to a Roman Catholic Christian under the Christian rites and customs has converted to that of one professing Christianity on the basis of her deemed renunciation of her original social identity of Hindu Scheduled Caste Pallan.

“To retain the socio-religious identity of a personality in case of marriages between two persons from two different religions, the only way out which could be adopted by the persons concerned to retain their original religion is to resort to a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954”, it further explained.

The Court emphasised that even though the doctrine of merger is an outdated aspect of law, in India, in the absence of any reforms in the personal laws and in the absence of an Uniform Civil Code, it is the primordial duty of the Court to secure the socio-cultural diversity of this land by upholding the personal laws of the multifarious diverse population of the land.

“Categorically concluding that the marriages held under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are the marriages of Hindus or the marriages of persons who professes Hinduism and the marriages solemnized voluntarily under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, are the marriages solemnized among the persons who professes Christianity, I allow this Writ Petition, by concluding that the fourth respondent has renounced her socio-cultural identity as a Hindu Pallan belonging to the Scheduled Caste community by voluntarily solemnizing her marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872”, it concluded.

The Court, therefore, directed the Inspector of Police to return the original baptism register and marriage register to the Parish Priest and get acknowledgement of the same and report before the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- V. Iyyappan v. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats & Ors. (Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.17632 of 2023)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate B. Saravanan

Respondents: AAG P. Veera Kathiravan, Government Advocates D.S. Neduncheliyan, K. Gnanasekaran, Advocates Aaiyam K. Selvakumar, and Anto Prince.

Click here to read/download the Judgment