The Madras High Court recently held that the fair complexion of a person, tall height, good physique, and proficiency in Tamil and English are not reasons to claim that the person practices Christianity [M Ravikumar v District Level Vigilance Committee & Ors.].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while setting aside a District Level Vigilance Committee order which had rejected the community certificate of one M Ravikumar, a Customs Department officer.

Ravikumar had claimed to belong to the Hindu Adi Dravidar community after being reconverted to Hinduism, following his birth into a Christian family.

The Committee had relied, among other things, on Ravikumar and his family's physical and linguistic characteristics, noting that they were fair-skinned, tall, well-built, spoke Tamil and English and had curly hair.

The High Court, however, rejected the relevance of these factors while examining the religion of a person, observing,

"While, whether the petitioner follows the Hindu gods or Christianity, will be relevant, the reasoning that the petitioner and his family members are very fair in colour, they are tall and having good physique and speak Tamil and English and have curly hair, may not have any relevance. The manner, in which the said reasons are mentioned in the impugned order, is also not in the context of any evaluation by any Anthropologist in this regard," the Court's September 11 order said.

The Committee had passed the order on May 4, 2026, holding Ravikumar's community certificate to be not genuine.

It had also cited his father's burial in a Christian cemetery and concluded that Ravikumar had not been accepted back into the Adi Dravidar community after his reconversion.

Ravikumar told the Court that his father, who originally belonged to the Hindu Adi Dravidar community, converted to Christianity in 1960. Ravikumar was born in 1966, after the conversion.

According to his case, he and his father later reconverted to Hinduism in 1983 at an Arya Samaj centre in Chennai.

He subsequently obtained a community certificate in 1986 identifying him as a Hindu Adi Dravidar and joined the Customs Department. The genuineness of the certificate was questioned shortly before his retirement in May 2026.

During the inquiry, Ravikumar relied on photographs of his marriage, the Hindu ceremonies performed for his children and his daughter's marriage, among other material, to show that he and his family followed Hindu customs.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court found that while some of the Committee's considerations could be relevant, several findings were either unsupported by adequate reasons or based on irrelevant considerations.

For instance, the Committee had relied on a 1994 ration card to conclude that Ravikumar's daughter was Christian.

Ravikumar then pointed out that he married only on September 15, 1994, while his first daughter was born on November 10, 1998. The Court, therefore, found the Committee's finding to be unsustainable.

Additionally, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in KP Manu v Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate, which dealt with the status of persons who were born into families that had converted from Hinduism to Christianity but later embraced Hinduism.

The apex court had held that such a person can return to the fold of their original caste if they embrace Hinduism and are accepted by members of that caste.

In this case, the Court noted that the Committee had concluded that Ravikumar was not accepted by the Adi Dravidar community after his reconversion. However, it had not given concrete reasons or facts to support that conclusion.

The Court, therefore, set aside the Committee's order and directed it to reconsider Ravikumar's claim afresh after giving him a personal hearing.

It directed Ravikumar to submit documents, photographs and other material in support of his claim within four weeks. Additionally, the Court directed the Vigilance Committee to then pass a fresh order within eight weeks of Ravikumar's appearance.

Advocate Manikanda Prabhu J appeared for Ravikumar.

Special Government Pleader Inthu Karunakaran represented the District Level Vigilance Committee and the State.

Central Government Senior Panel Counsel K Srinivasa Murthy appeared on behalf of Commissioner of Customs.

[Read Order]