JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.— 2, 36, 112 adult men and women voters of Rasipuram Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted the candidature of the first respondent, B. Devarajan, for the reserved seat, apparently considered him as a member of the Scheduled Castes, voted for him and elected him to the Lok Sabha, by a convincing majority of nearly sixty thousand votes at the election held in January 1980. And, it was not the first time. He was in fact a sitting member of the Lok Sabha having been elected from the same reserved constituency at the previous general election also. But the verdict of the people was not sufficient for the appellant, S. Ambalagan, who secured 1,76,240 votes in the January 1980 poll and lost the election. He wanted the verdict of an Election Tribunal on the question whether the respondent was a Christian and not a member of the Scheduled Castes, as claimed by him. So he filed an election petition questioning the election on that ground. The Election Tribunal on an elaborate consideration of the evidence held that the appellant (respondent) belonged to the Scheduled Castes and, on that finding, upheld the election. Ambalagan has preferred this appeal.

2. Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant, canvassed the finding of the Election Tribunal that the respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and, therefore, a member of the Scheduled Castes. He argued that the parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown to be Christians and the respondent though obviously a Christian himself was pretending to be a member of the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of gaining some advantages. He invited our attention to the Baptismal certificate and certain other documents and urged that the respondent was born a Christian and there was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on conversion to Hinduism.

3. In order to properly appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary first to understand the legal position in regard to caste-status on conversion or reconversion to Hinduism.

4. In Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari, (1886) ILR 9 Mad 466 a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court held that the conversion of a Hindu Brahmin to Christianity rendered him, according to Hindu Law, an outcaste and degraded. It was also observed that the degradation might be atoned for and the convert readmitted to his status as a Brahmin, if he at any time during his life renounced Christianity and performed the rites of explation enjoined by his caste.

5. In Muthusami Mudaliar v. Masilamani, (1910) ILR 33 Mad 342, Sankaran Nair, J. explained at length the process of formation of castes and also pointed out how simple the matter of reconversion to Hinduism was when a Hindu changed his religion and later reverted back to Hinduism.

6. In Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, (1934) 67 Mad LJ 389, Varadachariar, J. explained the observations made in certain cases by Ananta Krishna Iyer, J. about the necessity of expiatory ceremonies for reconversion to Hinduism and pointed out that in those cases, the alleged reconversion was into the Brahmin community of Hindus and it was possible to suggest that certain vedic rites would have been adopted in such cases, Expiatory ceremonies, it was further pointed out, would be necessary if such was the practice of the community and not otherwise. One had, therefore, only to look to the sense of the community and no more. In Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth, AIR 1937 Mad 172, Venkatasubba Rao, OCJ and Venkataramana Rao, J. approved the observations of Varadachariar, J. and thought it unnecessary to pursue the matter further. Mockett and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, JJ. in Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami, ILR (1940) Mad 653 observed that a convert from the Baliji caste to Christianity, on reconversion went back into the fold of the Baliji community and where there was no evidence about the necessity for expiatory ceremonies, it was hardly right