Hanging cross on wall, going to church not ground to cancel Scheduled Caste certificate: Madras High Court

Hanging a cross on a wall or going to church does not necessarily mean one has altogether abandoned the original faith to which one was born and cannot be the basis for cancelling a scheduled caste community certificate, the Madras High Court has ruled (Dr P Muneeswari v. Secretary to the Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and ors)..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice M Duraiswamy was dealing a petition seeking cancellation of a certificate signifying that the petitioner belonged to the Hindu Pallan community..There was no dispute that the petitioner-woman had been born to Hindu Pallan parents, the Court noted. However, the marriage of the petitioner to a christian and the fact that their children were recognised as belonging to the husband's community, is stated to have led to the cancellation of the petitioner's community certificate, the Court was told. .The authorities countered that they had visited the petitioner's medical clinic, where they found a cross hanging on the wall. The Court, however, was unconvinced that this can be a reason to conclude that the petitioner had also embraced Christianity. .The Bench added that even if the petitioner went to church with her christian husband and children, it would not necessarily indicate that she has altogether abandoned her original faith. ."Such officials apparently found a cross hanging on the wall and on the basis of such cross, the officials conjectured that the petitioner had converted to Christianity and was, thus, disqualified from retaining the Hindu Pallan community certificate. There is no suggestion in the affidavit that the petitioner has abandoned her faith or that the petitioner has embraced Christianity. It is equally possible that the petitioner, as a part of a family, may accompany the petitioner's husband and children for Sunday matins but the mere fact that a person goes to church does not mean that such person has altogether abandoned the original faith to which such person was born," the Court reasoned. .The Court commented further that the acts of the authorities portrayed a degree of narrow-mindedness that the Constitution does not encourage. ."Nothing may be presumed upon a member of a particular community respecting another community or another religion and, indeed, that is the constitutional mandate and not otherwise," the Court said. .The Court went on to quash the cancellation of the petitioner's community certificate, terming it arbitrary and based on surmises and conjectures without any material fact in support. The community certificate of the petitioner was directed to be restored with immediate effect. ."It would do well for the members of the scrutiny committee to approach the matter with a broader mind than is evident in the present case," the Court added. .Advocate C Mayil Vahana Rajendran appeared for the petitioner whereas Additional Government Pleader P Thilak Kumar appeared for the State authorities. .[Read Order]