Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of C. Selvarani V. The Special Secretary- Cum District Collector and Others has held that religious conversion should be motivated by genuine spiritual beliefs, not administrative advantages and such practices would undermine the sole objective of the reservation policies. 

What was the Background of C. Selvarani V. The Special Secretary- Cum District Collector and Others Case? 

• The appellant, C. Selvarani, was born on 22nd November, 1990 to a Christian father named Christian (son of Mounien) and a mother named Santhamarie. 
• The Appellant claimed that her father's side of the family originally belonged to the Valluvan caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the Pondicherry region. 
• She asserts that her mother converted to Hinduism after marriage and that her family has been practicing Hinduism. 
• In 2015, Selvarani applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) under the Scheduled Caste category and was selected. 
• During the verification process, she was asked to produce community, residence, and nativity certificates. 
• Her application for a Scheduled Caste community certificate was initially rejected by the local authorities on the grounds that she does not profess Hinduism. 
• Selvarani challenged this rejection through multiple appeals and legal channels, including: 
  • An initial appeal to higher authorities 
  • A writ petition in the High Court 
  • Approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal 
• She argued that despite being baptized as an infant, she and her family practice Hinduism and belong to the Valluvan caste. 
• She had previously been issued Scheduled Caste community certificates for herself, her father, and her brother. 
• The local authorities maintained their position that she is a Christian by religion and therefore ineligible for a Scheduled Caste community certificate. 
• The appellant prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondents before the Madras High Court. 
• The appellant also prayed to quash the orders passed by the respondents as they are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice. 
• She prayed for the order to issue Scheduled Caste Certificate as per the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, based on the community certificates already issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the appellant as well as her family members. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations:  
  • Religious Conversion and Caste Status 
    • The Court acknowledged that conversion to another religion typically results in losing one's original caste status. 
    • Mere claims of reconversion are insufficient without clear evidence of genuine return to the original religious community. 
  • Burden of Proof 
    • The burden was on the appellant to establish: 
      • Her genuine reconversion to Hinduism 
      • Acceptance by the original caste community 
      • Sincere intention to fully embrace Hindu practices 
    • Documentary Evidence 
      • The Court found compelling documentary evidence contradicting appellant’s claims: 
        • Baptism certificate showing her baptism within two months of birth 
        • Marriage registration of her parents under Christian marriage laws 
        • Statements from villagers confirming her family's Christian practice 
  • Motivation for Conversion Claims 
    • The Court was skeptical of conversion claims made primarily to access reservation benefits. 
    • It emphasized that converting religions solely to obtain employment reservations defeats the constitutional principles of reservation. 
  • Principles of Reservation 
    • The Court stressed that reservation policies are intended to uplift historically disadvantaged communities. 
    • Fraudulent claims undermine the social justice objectives of these policies. 
• Procedural Fairness 
  • The Court found that the authorities followed proper procedures: 
  • Conducted thorough investigations 
  • Provided opportunities for appellant to present her case 
  • Gave her multiple chances to explain her circumstances 
• Legal Precedents 
  • The Court relied on previous judgments establishing that 
    • Conversion typically results in losing caste identity 
    • Reconversion requires more than personal claims 
    • The caste community's acceptance is crucial in re-establishing caste status  
  • Secular Perspective 
    • While affirming the constitutional right to religious freedom, the Court highlighted that religious conversion should be motivated by genuine spiritual beliefs, not administrative advantages. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was a Christian by religion and practice. 
  • Her claims of being a Hindu were not substantiated by credible evidence. 
  • The observations fundamentally rejected appellant’s claim to a Scheduled Caste community certificate, emphasizing the importance of genuine religious identity over opportunistic claims and dismissed the present appeal. 

What is the Reservation? 

• Reservation is a form of positive discrimination, created to promote equality among marginalized sections, so as to protect them from social and historical injustice. 
• Generally, it means giving preferential treatment to marginalized sections of society in employment and access to education. 
• It was also originally developed to correct years of discrimination and to give a boost to disadvantaged groups. 
• In India, people have been historically discriminated on the basis of caste. 
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India (COI) briefly states the provisions guaranteeing equal opportunity to all the citizens in public employment without any discrimination as a general rule but subject to certain exceptions. 
  • Clause (4) states the provisions for Reservations as:  
    • It empowers the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 

What are the Main Issues and Loopholes in the Reservation System?  

• Fraudulent obtainment of Non-Creamy Layer (NCL), Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and disability certificates.  
• Inadequate scrutiny of eligibility for reservation benefits.  
• Strategies to circumvent creamy layer exclusion, such as asset gifting or premature retirement by parents.  
• Lack of consideration of the applicant's or spouse's income in creamy layer determination.  
• Concentration of benefits among a small percentage of OBC castes/sub-castes.  
• Absence of creamy layer concept for SC and ST categories.  
• Persistent unfilled vacancies in reserved seats, despite high reservation percentages.  
• Lack of sub-categorization within reserved categories, leading to underrepresentation of certain communities.  
• Potential misuse of disability certificates to access reserved seats.  
• Insufficient mechanisms to ensure benefits reach the most marginalized within underprivileged groups.  
• Absence of regular reviews and updates to the list of backward classes and income thresholds.  
• The lack of a comprehensive system to track and prevent multiple generations of a family from continuously benefiting from reservations. 

What is the Status of Religious Conversion Laws in India?  

• Religious conversion has become a highly debated topic in India, with several states enacting laws to regulate or prohibit certain types of conversions.   
• Constitutional Provision:  
  • The Indian Constitution under Article 25 of the COI guarantees the freedom to profess, propagate, and practice religion, and allows all religious sections to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.  
  • However, no person shall force their religious beliefs and consequently, no person should be forced to practice any religion against their wishes.  
• State-Level Anti-Conversion Laws in India  
  • Arunachal Pradesh: The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, fraud, or inducement  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Chhattisgarh: The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Requires notification to district magistrate for conversion  
  • Gujarat: The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 (amended in 2021)  
    • Prohibits forcible conversion and conversion by allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires prior permission for conversion  
  • Haryana: The Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2022  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes provisions against conversions for marriage  
    • Requires 30-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, inducement, or any fraudulent means  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires 30-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Jharkhand: The Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2017  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Karnataka: The Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022  
    • Prohibits unlawful conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires 30-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, allurement, force, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires 60-day prior notice for conversion  
  • Odisha: The Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, fraud, or inducement  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Rajasthan: The Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 (not enforced due to lack of rules)  
    • Prohibits conversion by force, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Requires notification to authorities for conversion  
  • Uttarakhand: The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage  
    • Includes burden-shifting provisions  
    • Requires one-month prior declaration for conversion  
  • Uttar Pradesh: The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021  
    • Prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means  
    • Includes provisions against conversions for marriage  
    • Requires 60-day prior notice for conversion 
• There isn't any specific "Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act" in India at the national level. 
  • Some states have introduced laws related to religious conversions, often referred to as anti-conversion laws. 
  • These laws typically aim to regulate or restrict religious conversions, particularly conversions that are alleged to be coerced or fraudulent.