It is certainly a matter of huge significance especially for those who prefer to convert to other religion from Hinduism hoping to get adequate protection from rampant discrimination pertaining to caste abuse among other things that none other than the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself at Amaravati in a most relevant, remarkable, rational, robust and recent judgment titled Akkala Ram Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 7114 of 2022 that was pronounced as recently as on 30.04.2025 has been most unequivocal in holding clearly, cogently and convincingly that the caste system is alien to Christianity and once a person converts to that religion, they cannot invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).” We thus see that the Amaravati High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a group of people who were accused of using casteist language and assaulting a pastor. We need to also note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Harinath N said that the SC/ST Act protection will not be available to a person holding the Scheduled Caste certificate if they have converted to Christianity. No denying it!
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Harinath N of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth precisely in para 1 that, “The petitioners are arraigned as accused in Spl.SC.No.36 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – SC & ST Court, Guntur for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 and Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 disclosing that, “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint on 26.01.2021 before the T.Sandole Police Station alleging that the petitioner is residing in Pittalavanipalem Village for the past 11 years along with his wife Soujanya, son Jadson Paul aged 7 years and daughter Mahima Paul aged 5 years. It is stated that for the past 10 years he has been conducting Sunday Prayers at the house of Doma Koti Reddy. About 20 to 30 people attend the Sunday Prayers. It is also stated that the petitioner is working as a Pastor and that he has been conducting Sunday Prayers without disturbing the peace of the villagers.”
While elaborating, the Bench then states succinctly in para 3 that, “It is stated in the complaint that the 2nd respondent received phone calls from the following numbers 8179892360, 63014362180, 8341686099, 9550315289, 9949681524, in the month of December, 2020 and that he was abused in the name of caste over the phone and was also threatened of eliminating him and that on 03.01.2021 at around 12.00 Noon while the 2nd respondent was performing the Sunday Prayer at the house of Dama Koti Reddy. The 1st accused is alleged to have called out the petitioner and slapped him and also fisted the petitioner. It is stated that as the petitioner is a Christian and on account of love of Jesus the 2nd respondent has pardoned the 1st accused.”
Further, the Bench then reveals in para 4 stating that, “It is also stated in the complaint that on 24.01.2021 when the 2nd respondent after completing Sunday Prayers at the house Doma Koti Reddy house and returning home, the petitioners along with 25 others had accosted the petitioners and assaulted him, in such a manner that the injuries would not be visible. The 2nd respondent was also threatened of elimination along with his family and he was abused in the name of his caste. The said complaint was lodged on 26.01.2021. On the strength of the complaint the police have registered a case against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r, 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), SC ST POA Act and 341, 506, 323 of IPC.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 observing very briefly that, “The police have conducted investigation and also filed a charge sheet, the same is taken on file as Spl.SC.No.36 of 2021.”
Do note, the Bench mandates in para 17 noting that, “Only a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe can invoke the provisions of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The preamble of the Act also would categorically state that “An Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.”
Truth be told, the Bench then stipulates in para 19 stating that, “Section 3 makes it clear that only a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can invoke the provisions of the Act. The fundamental issue is whether the 2nd respondent who is working as a Pastor for the last 10 years as on the date of filing of the complaint can claim to be a member of Scheduled Caste after his conversion to Christianity?”
Do also note, the Bench then briefly notes in para 20 that, “The listed witness No.1 is the defacto-complainant who categorically stated that he is working as a Pastor. LW.2 who is the wife of LW.1 also stated that LW.1 is working as a Pastor. LW.3 in his statement states that he is working as a Pastor at Penthe Coasta Church and that in Pittalavanipalem Mandal there is a Pastors Fellowship and that LW.1 is a Treasurer of the Pastors Fellowship. It is also stated that LW.1 is working as a Pastor at Kothapalem Village. LWs.4 and 5 also state that the LW.1 is working as a Pastor. LWs.6, 7 and 8 in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., states that they are residents of Kothapalem Village and lives by doing Agriculture. It is also stated that they had converted to Christianity about 10 years back and that for performing prayers LW.1 used to come as a Pastor on the invitation on every Sunday for conducting prayer meetings. LW.9 in her statement states that she used to go to Church for Prayers conducted at the house of Doma Koti Reddy and that the prayers were conducted by LW.1 as a Pastor. It is stated that LW.1 used to pick up LW.9 from her home and after Prayer used to drop her back at her home.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 21 that, “As seen from the recitals of the complaint and the statements of the material witnesses it is amply clear that the 2nd respondent is working as a Pastor and has been professing Christianity for the last 10 years as on the date of the complaint.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench notably points out in para 36 that, “The defacto-complainant has been serving as Treasurer of Pastors Fellowship in Pittalavanipalem Mandal. In order to become Pastor one has to essentially convert to Christianity. Evidently the 2nd respondent is a Christian professing Christianity. Having converted to Christianity, the petitioner cannot continue to be a member of Scheduled Caste community. The caste system is alien to Christianity. Having converted to Christianity and admitting his role as a Pastor in a Church the 2nd respondent could not invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 37 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “The SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a protective legislation introduced for preventing atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has misused the Protective Legislation though he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent had voluntarily converted to Christianity and was admittedly working as a Pastor in a Church for the last 10 years as on the date of incident. Thus, the 2nd respondent cannot be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Protective Legislation.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench lays bare in para 39 stating that, “The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner are applicable to the facts of this case. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would not be applicable as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kurapati Maria Das Vs. Dr.Ambedkar Seva Samajan and Ors 2009 LawSuit (SC) 624, as per the facts of that case there was a serious dispute with regard to conversion into Christianity. The appellant therein denied converting into Christianity, as such, it was considered as a question of fact which the High Court could not have gone into. On the facts of this case, there is no dispute about the faith in Christianity by the 2nd respondent. Thus, the said judgment would not be helpful to the case of the 2nd respondent. In Mohammad Sadique Vs. Dabara Singh Guru (2016) 11 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed at para 52 of the Judgment “…it is not essential for anyone to change one’s name after embracing a different faith. However, such change in name can be a corroborating fact regarding conversion or reconversion into a religion/faith in appropriate cases…” On the facts of this case, there is no issue of change of name after converting into Christianity by the 2nd respondent. However, he has named his son as Jadson Paul aged 7 years and daughter as Mahima Paul aged 5 years. These children are born to him after he converted into Christianity and as such has named his children with names which have Christian affinity.”
As a corollary, the Bench then points out emphatically in para 40 observing that, “Considering all this, this is a case where the 2nd respondent has misused the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and filed a false complaint. The argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent continues to hold SC Certificate issued by LW.12 is concerned, the same is a matter to be dealt under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 by the appropriate authority under the Act. Mere non-cancellation of the caste certificate by the authority to a person who has converted into Christianity cannot instill the protection granted under the Protective Legislation. The 2nd respondent has ceased to be a Member of the Scheduled Caste Community, the day he had converted into Christianity.”
Most rationally, the Bench then observes in para 41 that, “On these grounds, this Court is of the considered view that the registration of crime under the provisions of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is illegal. It is also held that filing of charge sheet inspite of the categorical statements of the listed witnesses specifically stating that the 2nd respondent is working as a Pastor for the last 10 years, the police could not have laid a charge sheet charging the petitioners for alleged offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Similarly, except for the listed witness Nos.1 and 3 no other witness speak about the altercation involving 30 people. Even the charge sheet does not state that 30 people had participated in the altercation. The only person accompanying LW.1 at the time of the alleged altercation was LW.9, she does not state about the alleged presence of the 30 people. All that she says in her statement recorded on 27.01.2021 i.e., one day after the date of filing of complaint. LW.9 stated that, she was the pillion rider of the two wheeler which was driven by LW.1, when LW.1 and LW.9 reached cross roads of Kothapalem Village some people came and stopped the two wheeler stating that they wanted to talk with the Pastor and that LW.9 was dropped off at her house on another bike. It is also stated by LW.9 she after reaching her home, she overheard people shouting. Later she came to know that Reddy’s of Kothapalem village have threatened LW.1 not to perform Sunday Prayers in the village. With these allegations, the requirements under Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC cannot be made out even after full-fledged trial. This Court is of the considered view that a false complaint is filed and no purpose would be served if the petitioners are relegated to the trial Court and to undergo the rigmarole of trial.”
Finally and resultantly, the Bench then very rightly draws the curtains of this pragmatic judgment by holding in para 42 that, “Accordingly criminal petition is allowed and Spl.SC.No.36 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – SC, ST Court, Guntur is hereby quashed. During the pendency of the present case Accused No.5 passed away. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
