{"id":147624,"date":"1983-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983"},"modified":"2015-12-30T05:30:28","modified_gmt":"2015-12-30T00:00:28","slug":"kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983","title":{"rendered":"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 600, \t\t 1984 SCR (2) 176<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKAILASH SONKAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. MAYA DEVI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR  600\t\t  1984 SCR  (2) 176\n 1984 SCC  (2)\t91\t  1983 SCALE  (2)1211\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1984 SC1260\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\n     Hindu law-Whether\ta Hindu\t on  conversion\t to  another\nreligion loses\tshe original  caste. Convertee\tloses  caste\nunless\tnew   religion\taccepts\t caste\tsystem\tand  permits\nconvertee to  retain his  original caste  and  family  laws.\nDuring conversion  original  caste  remains  under  eclipse-\nEcliyse Disappears  on reconversion to original religion. On\nreconversion to\t old  religion-Whether\tthe  original  caste\nrevives-Factors which determine revival of original caste.\n     Representation  of\t  the  People\tAct-Person  born  of\nChristian   parents-Educated   and   known   as\t  Christian-\nReconverted to\tHinduism  voluntarily-Married  a  member  of\nscheduled caste-Performed  shudhikaran ceremony-Accepted and\nwelcomed by  member of\tthat community\tas scheduled  caste-\nWhether such  person can  contest state assembly election as\nmember o  scheduled caste  from\t constituency  reserved\t for\nmembers of scheduled castes.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In the  nomination papers\tfiled by  the respondent for\ncontesting legislative\tassembly elections in May, 1980 from\na constituency\twhich was reserved for scheduled castes, she\ndescribed  herself  as\tbelonging  to  the  scheduled  caste\n'Katia'.  Several   persons  raised   objection\t  that\t the\nrespondent, being a Christian by birth, could not be treated\nas a  member of\t the scheduled\tcaste. The Returning Officer\nrejected the  objection and  accepted her nomination papers.\nThe respondent won the election defeating the appellant. The\nappellant having  unsuccessfully challenged  the election of\nthe respondent\tin the\tHigh Court,  alleged in\t this appeal\nthat  the  respondent  after  being  born  a  Christian\t was\nbaptised according to Christian rites; her mother's name was\nElizabeth;  her\t marriage  with\t Jai  Prakash  Shalwar,\t who\nbelonged to  Katia caste, was not valid and even on marriage\nher caste  could not revive because caste was determined not\nby marriage but by birth. The respondent stated that she was\nnever a\t Christian nor\twas she\t born a\t Christian. She also\naverred that  even her father or mother were not Christians.\nOn the other hand, she always remained a member of the Katia\ncaste and  was accepted\t as such  by  the  members  of\tthat\ncommunity because  her marriage with Jai Prakash Shalwar was\nperformed according to Hindu rites of Aryasamaj sect and was\nattended by  a number  of  members  of\ther  caste  and\t due\npublicity was given to the marriage.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: It  cannot be  said that  at the  time  when\t the\nrespondent filed her nomination papers, she was not a member\nof the Katia caste. [199 G]\n     A\tcaste  to  which  a  Hindu  belongs  is\t essentially\ndetermined  by\t birth\tand  if\t a  Hindu  is  converted  to\nChristianity or any other religion which does not recognise\n177\ncaste, the  conversion amounts\tto a loss of the said caste.\nIn considering\twhether on  conversion the loss of the caste\nis absolute,  irrevocable so  as not  to  revive  under\t any\ncircumstance the  guiding principles are: (a) Where a person\nbelonging to  a scheduled caste in converted to Christianity\nor Islam,  the same  involves loss  of the  caste unless the\nreligion to  which he  is converted  is\t liberal  enough  to\npermit the  convertee to retain his caste or the family laws\nby which  he was  originally governed. There are a number of\ncases where  members belonging\tto a particular caste having\nbeen converted\tto Christianity\t or even  to Islam  retained\ntheir caste  or family\tlaws and  despite the new order they\nwere permitted\tto be  governed by  their old laws. But this\ncan happen  only if the new religion is liberal and tolerant\nenough to  permit such\ta course  of action,  and (b) In all\nother cases,  conversion to  Christianity or  Islam  or\t any\nother religion\twhich does  not accept\tthe caste system and\ninsists on relinquishing the caste, there is a loss of caste\non conversion. [190C-F; 191 B]\n     The norms\tand conditions\tunder which  a\tcaste  could\nrevive on  reconversion to  the old religion as laid down by\nthe authorities\t of the\t High Courts and this Court are: (1)\nwhere the  convertee exhibits  by his  actions and behaviour\nhis clear  intention of abjuring the new religion on his own\nvolition without  any persuasion and is not motivated by any\nbenefit or gain, (2) where the community of the old order to\nwhich the  convertee originally\t belonged is gracious enough\nto admit  him to  the original\tcaste either expressly or by\nnecessary intendment,  and (3)\tRules of  the new  Order  in\npermitting the\tconvertee to  join the new caste. Unless the\naforesaid conditions  are fulfilled  the loss  of  caste  on\nconversion is  complete and  cannot he\trevived. But  having\nregard\tto   the  present   set-up  and\t  the  circumstances\nprevailing in  our modern  society, it\twill be difficult to\ninsist on  the second condition, viz., the insistence on the\nmembers of the community of the caste to admit the convertee\non reconversion\t to the original caste because such a course\nof  action  may\t lead  to  dangerous  consequence  and\till-\nconcieved exploitation. [191 C-G]\n     G.M. Arumugam  v. S.  Rajagopal & Ors., [1976] 3 S.C.R.\n82; Sacred  Books of  the East (Vol. VIII) by F. Max Muller;\nCharlotte Abraham  and Daniel  Vincent\tAbraham\t v.  Francis\nAbraham,  9  M.I.A.  199:  Chaturbhuj  Vithaldas  Jasani  v.\nMoreshwar Parashram & Ors.,<\/a> [1954] S.C.R. 817; S. Anbalalagn\nv. B.  Devarajan &  Ors., [1984] I.S.C.R. Goona Durgaprasada\nRao &  Anr. v.\tGoona Sudarsanaswami & Ors., ILR 1940 Madras\n653; G.\t Michael v.  S. Venkateswaran,\tAIR 1952 Madras 474;\nDippala Suri  Dora v.  V.V. Giri  AIR 1958  A.P. 724; Wilson\nReade v.  C.S. Booth  & Ors.  AIR 1958\tAssam  128;  and  B.\nShyamsunder v.\tShakar\tDeo  Vedalankar\t &  Ors.,  AIR\t1960\nMysore, 27 referred to.\n     S. Rajagopal  v. C.M.  Armugam &  Ors.,<\/a> [1969] 1 S.C.R.\n254, distinguished.\n     The main  test  for  determining  the  revival  of\t the\noriginal caste on reconversion should be a genuine intention\nof the\treconvert to  abjure his new religion and completely\ndissociate himself  from it.  It may be added here that this\ndoes not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or\na pretext  or a\t cover to  gain mundane\t worldly benefits so\nthat the  reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a\nparticular purpose  whereas  the  real\tintention    may  be\nshrouded in  mystery. The reconvert must exhibit a clear and\ngenuine intention  to go  back to his old fold and adopt the\ncustoms and  practices of  the said fold without any protest\nfrom members of his erstwhile caste.[192C-E]\n     Ganpat v.\tReturning Officer  & Ors.,<\/a>  [1975] 2  S.C.R.\n923, referred to.\n178\n     When a  child is born neither has he an religion nor is\nhe capable  of choosing\t one until  he reaches\tthe  age  of\ndiscretion  and\t  acquires  proper   understanding  of\t the\nsituation. Hence, the mere fact that the parents of a child,\nwho were  Christians, would in ordinary course get the usual\nbaptism certificate and perform other ceremonies without the\nchild knowing  what is\tbeing done  but after  the child has\ngrown up  and becomes  fully mature  and able  to decide his\nfuture, he  ought not  to be  bound by\twhat his parents may\nhave done.  Therefore, in such cases, it is the intention of\nthe convertee  which would  determine  the  revival  of\t the\ncaste. If  by his  clear and  conclusive conduct  the person\nreconverts to  his old faith and abjures the new religion in\nunequivocal terms his caste automatically revives. [192 G-H;\n193 A]\n     Another dominant factor to determine the revival of the\ncaste of  a convert  from Christianity\tto his\told religion\nwould be  that in  cases of election to the State Assemblies\nor the\tParliament where  under\t the  Presidential  Order  a\nparticular constituency\t is reserved  for a  member  of\t the\nscheduled caste or tribe and the electorate given a majority\nverdict in  his favour,\t then this  would be doubtless proof\npositive of  the fact  that his\t community has\taccepted him\nback to\t his old  fold and this would result in a revival of\nthe original  caste to\twhich the  said candidate  belonged.\n[193 B-C]\n     When a  person is\tconverted to  Christianity  or\tsome\nother religion\tthe original caste remains under eclipse and\nas  soon   as  during\this\/her\t life-time   the  person  is\nreconverted to\tthe original religion the eclipse disappears\nand the caste automatically revives. [193 D]\n     Whether or\t not the revival of the caste depends on the\nwill and  discretion of\t the members of the community of the\ncaste is  a question  on which\twe refrain  from giving\t any\nopinion because\t in the\t instant case  there is overwhelming\nevidence to  show that\tthe respondent\twas accepted  by the\ncommunity of  her original Katia caste. Even so, if the fact\nof the\tacceptance by  the members  of the community is made\ncondition precedent  to the  revival of\t the caste, it would\nlead to\t grave consequences  and  unnecessary  exploitation,\nsometimes motivated  by political considerations. Of course,\nif apart  from the  oral views of the community there is any\nrecognised documentary\tproof of a custom or code of conduct\nor rule\t of law\t binding on  a particular  caste, it  may be\nnecessary to  insist on\t the consent  of the  members of the\ncommunity otherwise  in normal circumstances the caste would\nrevive by applying the principles of doctrine of eclipse. It\nmay  be\t  added\t that  where  it  appears  that\t the  person\nreconverted to\tthe  old  religion  had\t been  converted  to\nChristianity since  several generations, it may be difficult\nto apply  the doctrine\tof eclipse  to the revival of caste.\n[193 D-G]\n     In the  instant case,  on a full and complete appraisal\nof  the\t  oral\tand   documentary  evidence,  the  following\nconclusions are inevitable: (1) that the respondent was born\nof Christian  parents and was educated in various schools or\ninstitutions where she was known as a Christian; (2) that 3-\n4 years\t before the election, the respondent was reconverted\nto Hinduism  voluntarily and  married Jai Prakash Shalwar, a\nmember\tof   the  Katia\t  caste,  and\talso  performed\t the\nshudhikaran ceremony; (3) that she was not only accepted but\nalso  welcomed\tby  the\t important  members,  including\t the\nPresident and Vice-President, of the community; (4) there is\nno evidence  to show  that  there  was\tany  bar  under\t the\nChristian religion  which  could  have\tprevented  her\tfrom\nreconverting herself to Hinduism; and (5) that\n179\nthere was no evidence to show that even her parents had been\nChristians  from   generation  to   generation.\t  In   these\ncircumstances, therefore,  this case  fulfils the conditions\nrequired for being reconverted to Hinduism from Christianity\nin order to revive the original caste [198 G-H; 199 A-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3118 of
\n1981.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated the 25th September,
\n1981 of\t the Madhya  Pradesh High Court in Election Petition
\nNo 2 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     U.R. Lalit and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
\n     G.B. Pai and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI.\t J. By\tour Order dated October 20, 1983, we
\nhad dismissed the appeal. We now proceed to give our reasons
\nfor the same.\n<\/p>\n
     The victory of our long drawn struggle for freedom from
\nthe British  Yoke came to us after one and a half century of
\nperpetual and  constant efforts\t soaked in  cold  blood\t and
\ndipped in  supreme sacrifice.  The  historical\tmidnight  of
\nAugust 15,  1947, which\t ushered in  a new era, was merely a
\ncompletion of  a phase\tand not the end of an epoch but only
\nthe beginning of the end.\n<\/p>\n
     Soon thereafter  the  wise\t wizards  and  the  founding
\nfathers\t of   our  Constitution\t set  out  to  devote  their
\nwholehearted attention\tto devise ways, and means to give to
\nour sub-continent  a solid  and\t comprehensive\tConstitution
\nwhich may  solve  multifarious\tand  manifold  difficulties,
\nfulfil the  burning needs of the nation and sort out complex
\nand complicated\t problems  which  arose\t after\tour  hardwon
\nfreedom which  must have  baffled our leaders. There was the
\nquestion of  achieving a  secular democracy,  the largest in
\nthe world,  based on  a socialist  pattern which would taken
\ncare of\t all sorts  and kinds  of  people  having  different
\ncultures, languages  and religions;  to confer and guarantee
\nfundamental rights of citizens through mandatory provisions,
\nto lay\tdown directive principles of State Policy which were
\nto be  the guiding  spirit of the Constitution, the question
\nof achieving  agrarian reforms by displacing the old British
\nbureaucratic system  and substituting a new order, the issue
\nof reconciling\tthe irreconcilable  and various other thorny
\nand tricky matters. One
\n180<\/span>
\nof the important objectives to be translated into action was
\nto take special care of the backward classes, members of the
\nscheduled castes  and tribes  by bringing  them to  the fore
\nthrough\t  pragmatic    reforms\t and\tproviding   adequate
\nopportunities  for   their  amelioration   and\tdevelopment,
\neducation, employment and the like.\n<\/p>\n
     As Mahatma\t Gandhi, father\t of the\t nation, said “India
\nlives in villages” and so do the backward classes, hence the
\nprimary task  was to  take constructive\t steps in  order  to
\nboost up  these classes by giving them adequate concessions,
\nopportunities, facilities and representation in the services
\nand, last but not the least, in the electorate so that their
\nvoices and views, grievances and needs in the Parliament and
\nState legislatures  in the  country may\t be heard,  felt and
\nfulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  election appeal  which has  been filed against
\nthe Judgment  dated October  25, 1981  of the  High Court of
\nMadhya Pradesh, we are really concerned with the last aspect
\nmentioned above.  Despite odds and ends our Constitution has
\nmade exhaustive provisions for difficult to say, for this is
\nreally a herculean task and one cannot expect miracles to be
\nperformed within  a span  of  three  decades  which  in\t the
\nhistory of  nations, is\t not a very long period.  The knotty
\nand difficult,\tpuzzling and  intricate issue  with which we
\nare faced  is, to  put it shortly, ‘what happens if a member
\nof a  scheduled caste  or  tribe  leaves  his  present\tfold
\n(Hinduism) and\tembraces Christianity  or Islam or any other
\nreligion’-does\tthis  amount  to  a  complete  loss  of\t the
\noriginal caste\tto which he belonged for ever and, if so, it
\nhe or his children choose to abjure the new religion and get
\nreconverted  to\t  the  old  religion  after  performing\t the
\nnecessary rites\t and ceremonies,  could the  original  caste
\nrevive ?  The serious  question posed  here  arose  and\t has
\nformed the  subject-matter of  a large\tcatena of  decisions
\nstarting from  the year 1861, traversing a period of about a
\ncentury and  a half,  and culminating  in a decision of this
\nCourt in the case of G.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal & Ors.(1)
\n     The Constitution  has tried  to solve  the problem to a
\ngreat extent  by the  Constitution (Scheduled  Castes) Order
\n1950 (hereinafter  referred to\tas the\t‘1950 Order’) issued
\nunder Art.  341, which\tlays down  a list  of various castes
\nprevailing in  the country  and the  norms to  determine the
\nsame. This Order has been amended from time to
\n181<\/span>
\ntime. In our opinion, despite a genuine attempt to solve the
\nproblem the  provisions do  not provide a complete answer to
\nthe judicial  interpretation by\t this Court  which lays down
\nthe law\t of the\t land. It  is true  that the controversy has
\nbeen narrowed  down  to\t the  minimum  by  the\tdecision  in
\nArumuga’s case\t(supra) still  there are some vital question
\nwhich remain unanswered.\n<\/p>\n
     Before dealing  with  the\tcases  on  the\tsubject\t and
\nstarting the chapter of the issues involved in this case, it
\nmay be\tgermane to  give a  short  history  of\tthe  nature,
\ncharacter, origin  and background  of  the  controversy.  To
\nbegin with,  the caste\tsystem actually\t came into existence
\nsince the dawn of the civilized races in this country, viz.,
\nDravidian  followed  by\t Aryan\tcivilization  which  through
\nHinduism  divided   by\tcastes\tinto  three  clear-cut\tsub-
\ndivisions  which  started  by  virtue  of  the\toccupational
\npursuits followed  by the  various classes.  The priests and
\nthe scholars  were known  as the Bhrahmanas and looked after
\nreligious  ceremonies,\t education,  etc.   This  Class\t was
\nsupposed to  be the  highest Class  or atleast respected and
\nregarded as  such. Then\t came the  Kshatriyas who  were\t the
\npeople engaged in fighting wars and ruling and administering
\nthe States.  Thirdly, there were the Vaisayas who carried on
\nthe occupation\tof trade and commerce. The Sudras were added
\nas the\tfourth Class  after fusion of the pre-Dravidian with
\nthe Dravidian and Aryan civilizations which formed the basic
\nfabric of  Hinduism and\t the Hindu  society. This  Class was
\ntreated as  a little  inferior\tand  suffered  from  certain
\ndisabilities.\n<\/p>\n
     In fact,  it seems\t to us\tthat our large sub-continent
\nwas inhabited  by a very large variety of peoples and races-
\nindigenous and\toutsiders-consisting of\t Scythians, Yavanas,
\nKirathas, Kambhojas  and Persians  and others  who  came  to
\nIndia in  ancient times\t and  got  mixed  up  with  the\t old
\ninhabitants of\tthe country  and thus  completely lost their
\nidentity. It  appears to us that all these races entered the
\nwide and  broad fold  of  Hinduism,  which  is\tnot  only  a
\nreligion but  also a way or poetry of life, a philosophy, an
\nexhaustive and ethical code of living which adapts-itself to
\nall  forms   and  cultures.   In  view\t of   this   complex
\nintermingling of  various kinds\t of people, as time went by,
\ncastes\tstarted\t  multiplying,\tand   in  this\tprocess\t the
\navocations and\toccupations  followed  by  members  of\tsuch
\ncastes from  generation to  generation\t were labelled\tas a
\nseparate  class\t to  which  the\t people\t practising  various
\nprofessions belonged  and this institution had come to stay.
\nThe origin, therefore of the fundamental basis of the castes
\nhas now\t disappeared and  given rise  to  individualism\t and
\nsepara-\n<\/p>\n
182<\/span><\/p>\n
tism as\t a result  of which  it was  duly recognised  by all
\nschools of  Hindu thought  that birth  alone would determine
\nthe caste  and this  principle would have to continue unless
\nthe concept  of caste  is banished for ever. In other words,
\nit is  now well\t settled-whether one  accepts it or not-that
\ncaste is  the result of birth and not of choice or volition.
\nWithout traversing  on any  controversial issue\t and  coming
\nback to\t the origin  of the  caste system,  we would like to
\nrefer to  the most  authoritative pronouncements ordained by
\nLord Krishna  in Shree\tBhagvadgita which  would demonstrate
\nthat the  division of castes was made purely on the basis of
\ninherent qualities  and avocations of a person and hence the
\nquestion of  superiority between one or the other lay not on
\nthe nature of the caste but on their actions and deeds. This
\nwould be  illustrated by  a reference  to the actual text of
\nShri Bhagvadgita  as compiled  by F.  Max Muller in his book
\nentitled ‘Sacred Books of the East (Vol. VIII)’ and we would
\nlike to\t extract  some\tpassages  and  injunctions  of\tLord
\nKrishna illustrating  the vices\t and virtues  of  men  where
\ncastes also  figure. In\t Shloka 13,  Chapter 4\tof  Bhagvada
\nGeeta, Lord  Krishna clearly  proclaimed that  “Four Varnas,
\nviz., Brahmanas,  Kshtriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras were created
\nby him\ton the basis of inherent qualities and avocations of
\na particular  individual”. (Translated into English from the
\noriginal text in Hindi).\n<\/p>\n
Further said Lord Krishna to the son of Kunti thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Whatever you  do, O’Son  of Kunti:  Whatever you\teat,
\n     whatever  sacrifices   you\t make,\twhatever  you  give,
\n     whatever-penance you,  do that  as offered to me…I am
\n     alike to  all beings; to me none is hateful, none dear.
\n     But those\twho worship  me with devotion (dwell) in me,
\n     and I  too in  them. Even\tif a  very ill-conducted man
\n     worships me,  not worshiping  any\tone  else,  he\tmust
\n     certainly be  deemed  to  be  good,  for  he  has\twell
\n     resolved.. (You  may) affirm,  O son  of Kunti: that my
\n     devotee is\t never ruined.\tFor, O\tson of\tPritha: even
\n     those who\tare of\tsinful birth,  women,  Vaisyas;\t and
\n     Sudras likewise,  resorting to  me, attain\t the supreme
\n     goal. What\t then (need  be said  of) holy Brahmanas and
\n     royal saints who are (my) devotees ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     These  passages   clearly\tgo   to\t confirm   the\ttrue
\nphilosophy of  Mahatma Gandhi that the Sudras or the members
\nof the\tscheduled  castes  are\tHarijans  and  he  condemned
\nuntouchability and  the\t habit\tof  looking  down  upon\t the
\nscheduled caste people merely because
\n183<\/span>
\nthey belonged to the Sudra caste. Further, Lord Krishna goes
\non to ordain as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “The duties  of Brahmanas,\t Kshatriyas and Vaisyas, and
\n     of\t Sudras,   too,\t O   terror  of\t  your\tfoes  !\t are
\n     distingushed according to the qualities born of nature.
\n     Tranquility, restraint  of the senses, penance, purity,
\n     forgiveness,  straight   forwardness,  also  knowledge,
\n     experience, and belief (in a future world), this is the
\n     natural duty  of  Brahmanas.  Valour,  glory,  courage,
\n     dexterity, not  a\tslinking  away\tfrom  battle  gifts,
\n     exercise of  lordly power,\t this is the natural duty of
\n     Kshatriyas. Agriculture,  tending cattle, trade, (this)
\n     is the natural duty of Vaisyas. And the natural duty of
\n     Sudras, too, consists in service. (Every) man intent on
\n     his      own\trespective\tduties\t     obtains
\n     perfection….Worshipping, by  (the performance of) his
\n     own duty, him from whom all things proceed, and by whom
\n     all this is permeated, a man obtains perfection.”
\n     In another chapter, Vidura is quoted as saying thus:
\n     “I am born of a Sudra womb, and do not like to say more
\n     than what\t(I have said’). But the intelligence of that
\n     youth, I  believe to  be eternal.\tHe who has come of a
\n     Brahamana womb,  even though  he may  proclaim a  great
\n     mystery, does  not thereby become liable to the censure
\n     of the gods. Therefore do I say this to you.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of  the  revealed\t injunctions  in  the  Shree
\nBhagavadgita Mahatma Gandhi’s dream that all distinctions of
\ncastes and creed must disappear and man must be known by his
\naction, to  whatever caste  he may belong, has been realised
\nto some\t extent and necessary provisions to this effect have
\nbeen made  in the  Constitution in  order to  safeguard\t the
\ninterests of the backward classes and members of the members
\nof the\tscheduled castes  and scheduled\t tribes and perhaps,
\nlet us\thope, a day comes when the distinction between caste
\nand creed disappears completely.\n<\/p>\n
     One of  the most  puzzling question that arises in this
\ncase is:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ‘Is  membership   in\ta   caste  or  tribe  to  be
\n     determined solely\tby birth  or by allegiance or by the
\n     opinion of\t its members  or of  the neighbourhood? Does
\n     one lose his caste on conversion or by ex-communication
\n     ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
184<\/span><\/p>\n
     The  decisions   to  which\t we  would  we\twould  refer
\nhereafter have\tthrown flood of light on these questions and
\nthe generally  accepted view  seems to\tbe the one which has
\nbeen laid  down in  Charlotte  Abraham\tand  Daniel  Vincent
\nAbraham\t v.  Francis  Abraham(1)  where\t the  Privy  Council
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is plain that no rule as to such use and enjoyment,
\n     which the\tancestors may  voluntarily have\t imposed  on
\n     themselves, could\tbe of  compulsory  obligation  on  a
\n     descendant of  theirs; acquiring  his own\twealth. If a
\n     Hindoo in\tan undivided  family may  keep his  own sole
\n     acquisitions  separate,   as  he\tundoubtedly  may,  a
\n     fortiori a\t Christian may do the same ….If the spirit
\n     of\t an  adopted  religion\timproves  those\t who  become
\n     converts to  it,  and  they  reject,  from\t conscience,
\n     customs  to   which  their\t first\tconverted  ancestors
\n     adhered, must the abandoned usages be treated by assort
\n     of fictio\tJuris as  still the  enduring customs of the
\n     family.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     So far as this Court is concerned, these questions were
\nclearly answered in Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar
\nParashram &  Ors.,<\/a>(2) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Jasani’s,
\ncase’ where a triple test was laid down thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Looked at\t from the  secular point  of view, there are
\n     three factors which have to be considered:
\n     (1) the  reactions of  the old body, (2) the intentions
\n     of the  individual himself and (3) the rules of the new
\n     order. If\tthe old\t order is  tolerant of the new faith
\n     and sees  no reason  to outcaste  or ex-communicate the
\n     convert and  the individual himself desires and intends
\n     to retain\this  old  social  and  political  ties,\t the
\n     conversion is  only nominal  for all practical purposes
\n     and when  we have\tto consider  the legal and political
\n     rights of\tthe old\t body the  views of  the  new  faith
\n     hardly matter…On\t the other  hand, if the convert has
\n     shown by  his conduct  and dealings that his break from
\n     the old  order is\tso complete  and final\tthat  he  no
\n     longer regards  himself as a member of the old body and
\n     there is reconversion and readmittance to the old fold,
\n     it would  be wrong\t to hold  that he  can\tnevertheless
\n     claim temporal privileges and political advanta-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
185<\/span><\/p>\n
     ges which\tare special  to the  old order….  The only
\n     modification here\tis that\t it is\tnot only  his choice
\n     which must\t be taken into account but also the views of
\n     the body  whose  religious\t tenets\t he  has  renounced,
\n     because here  the right we are considering is the right
\n     of the old body, the right conferred on it as a special
\n     privilege\tto   send  a  member  of  its  own  fold  to
\n     Parliament.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The observations cited above give the general test that
\ncan be applied in judging the question as to when a Hindu on
\nconversion loses  his caste.  Although the test laid down by
\nthis case  is fully  supported by the original text of Hindu
\nLaw, it\t does not  in so many words answer the other side of
\nthe picture,  viz., if\ta Hindu\t after conversion to another
\nreligion is  reconverted to  his original  fold,  could\t his
\ncaste revive  ? In fact, the case cited above was not a case
\nof conversion  from one religion to another religion or from
\none sect  to another  sect. By and large, the test laid down
\nin that\t case can  be usefully\tapplied with alterations and
\nmodifications to  suit the  facts of  a particular  case  in
\njudging the  question whether  on conversion  the  caste  is
\ncompletely lost.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  case which  throws some light on the question
\nis S.  Rajagopal v.  C.M. Armugam  Ors.<\/a>(1) In this case what
\nhad happened  was that\tthe appellant  (before\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt) had  filed his  nomination papers  for a constituency
\nreserved for  members of the scheduled caste mentioned under
\nthe 1950  Order but  he was  defeated by respondent No. 1 of
\nthat case,  whose petition  succeeded. The contention in the
\npetition was  that the\tappellant was  not  a  Hindu  but  a
\nChristian and  therefore not qualified to be a candidate for
\na constituency\treserved for scheduled caste. The High Court
\nfound as a fact that the appellant had become a Christian in
\n1949  and   his\t later\treconversion  to  Hinduism  remained
\nunproved. This Courts agreeing with the High Court dismissed
\nthe appeal.  One important feature of this case may be noted
\nwhich would  at once distinguish this case from the facts of
\nthe present  case. The question as to whether a Christian on
\nbeing reconverted  to Hinduism\twould get back his caste did
\nnot arise  at all  in that  case because on the facts found,
\nreconversion was  not proved.  Therefore,  the\tquestion  of
\ncaste being  acquired or  being revived\t on reconversion  to
\nHinduism did  not fall\tfor determination and was left open.
\nEven so,  considering Jasani’s\tcase and  a number  of other
\ntexts, Bhargava, J. made
\n186<\/span>
\nthe following observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Considering the question of entry into the caste,
\n     Krishnaswami  Ayyangar,   J.,  held  that,\t in  matters
\n     affecting the well-being or composition of a caste, the
\n     caste itself  is the  supreme judge.  It  was  on\tthis
\n     principle that  a reconvert  to Hinduism could become a
\n     member of the caste, if the caste itself as the supreme
\n     judge accepted him as a full member of it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     While holding  that  if  a\t person\t is  reconverted  to
\nHinduism  and  the  community  of  the\tcaste  to  which  he
\noriginally belonged  accepts him,  his caste  would  revive;
\nnevertheless the  question was\tleft open.  Rajagopal’s case
\n(supra) merely reiterates what was held in Jasani’s case and
\ndoes not go any further.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion, there  is one  aspect which  does\t not
\nappear to have been dealt with by any of the cases discussed
\nby us.\tSuppose, A,  a member  of the  scheduled  caste,  is
\nconverted to Christianity and marries a Christian girl and a
\ndaughter is  born to  him who,\taccording to  the tenets  of
\nChristian religion,  is baptised and educated. After she has
\nattained the  age of  discretion  she  decides\tof  her\t own
\nvolition to  re-embrace Hinduism,  should  in  such  a\tcase
\nrevival of  the caste  depend on the views of the members of
\nthe  community\t of  the   caste  concerned   or  would\t  it
\nautomatically revive  on her  reconversion if  the  same  is
\ngenuine and followed by the necessary rites and ceremonies ?
\nIn other  words, is  it not open for B (the daughter) to say
\nthat  because  she  was\t born  of  Christian  parents  their
\nreligion cannot\t be thrust  on her  when after attaining the
\nage of\tdiscretion and\tgaining some  knowledge of the world
\naffairs, she  decides to  revert to her old religion. It was
\nnot her\t fault that  she was  born of  Christian parents and
\nbaptised at  a time  when she  was still  a minor  and\tknew
\nnothing about the religion. Therefore, should the revival of
\nthe caste  depend on  the whim or will of the members of the
\ncommunity of  her original caste or she would lose her caste
\nfor ever merely because fortunately or unfortunately she was
\nborn in a Christian family ? With due respect, our confirmed
\nopinion is  that although  the views  of the  members of the
\ncommunity would\t be an\timportant factor, their views should
\nnot be\tallowed to  a complete\tloss of the caste to which B
\nbelonged. Indeed, if too much stress is laid on the views of
\nthe members  of the community the same may lead to dangerous
\nexploitation. Perhaps,\tthis factor  was present in the mind
\nof Bhagwati, J., who delivered the leading judgment
\n187<\/span>
\nin a  later decision  of this  Court in\t G.M. Arumugam v. S.
\nRajagopal &  Ors.(1) where,  speaking for the Court, he made
\nthe following observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  sufficient to\t state that originally there
\n     were only\tfour main  castes, but\tgradually castes and
\n     sub-castes multiplied  as the  social  fabric  expanded
\n     with the  absorption  of  different  groups  of  people
\n     belonging to  various cults  and  professing  different
\n     religious faiths.\tThe caste system in its early stages
\n     was quite\telastic but  in course\tof time it gradually
\n     hardened\tinto\ta   rigid   framework\tbased\tupon
\n     heredity……But that immediately raises the question;
\n     what is  a caste.\tWhen we\t speak of a caste, we do not
\n     mean to  refer in\tthis context  to  the  four  primary
\n     castes, but  to the  multiplicity of  castes  and\tsub-
\n     castes which  disfigure the  Indian social\t scene…..A
\n     caste is  more a  social combination  than a  religious
\n     group.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  But from that it does not necessarily follow as an
\n     invariable\t rule\tthat  whenever\ta  person  renounces
\n     Hinduism  and  embraces  another  religious  faith,  he
\n     automatically ceases  to be  a member  of the  caste in
\n     which he was born and to which he belonged prior to his
\n     conversion.. .  If the  structure of  the caste is such
\n     that  its\tmember\tmust  necessarily  belong  to  Hindu
\n     religion, out  of the  caste, because no non- Hindu can
\n     be in the caste according to its rules and regulations.
\n     Where,  on\t  the  other  hand,  having  regard  to\t its
\n     structure, as  it has  evolved over  the years, a caste
\n     may consist  not  only  of\t persons  professing  Hindu-
\n     religion  but   also  persons   professing\t some  other
\n     religion as  well, conversion  from  Hinduism  to\tthat
\n     other religion  may not  involve loss of caste, because
\n     even persons  professing such  other  religion  can  be
\n     members of\t the caste………  This is  indeed not  an
\n     infrequent phenomenon  in South India where, in some of
\n     the castes,  even after  conversion to  Christianity, a
\n     person is\tregarded as  continuing\t to  belong  to\t the
\n     caste.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  There are  castes, particularly  in  South  India,
\n     where this\t consequence does  not follow on conversion,
\n     since such castes comprise both Hindus and Christians.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
188<\/span><\/p>\n
     These weighty  observations support the view that after
\nreconversion the caste will normally revive. On the question
\nwhether\t the  caste  will  revive  if  the  members  of\t the
\ncommunity accepts  the reconvert,  the\tJudges\tare  silent.
\nAlthough Bhagwati, J. held that prima facie on conversion to
\nChristianity the respondent would not cease to belong to the
\nAdi Dravida  caste, yet\t he refrained  from  expressing\t any
\nfinal opinion on the point.\n<\/p>\n
     In a  recent decent decision of this Court S. Ambalagan
\nv. B. Devarajan & Ors.(1) (which was also an election case),
\na three-Judge  Bench reiterated the principles enunciated by
\nArumugan’s case (supra) and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Unless  the\t practice  of  the  caste  makes  it
\n     necessary no  expiatory rites  need be  performed\tand,
\n     ordinarily, he  regains his  caste unless the community
\n     does  not\taccept\thim………The\t practice  of  caste
\n     however irrational\t it may\t appear to  our\t reason\t and
\n     however repugnant it may appear to our moral and social
\n     sense, is\tso deep-rooted in the Indian people that its
\n     mark does\tnot seem  to disappear\ton conversion  to  a
\n     different religion.  If it\t disappears,  it  disappears
\n     only to reappear on reconversion……..
\n\t  In fact,  this process  goes\ton  continuously  in
\n     India and generation by generation lost sheep appear to
\n     return to\tthe castefold and are once again assimilated
\n     in that fold. This appears to be particularly so in the
\n     case of  members of  the Scheduled\t Castes, who embrace
\n     other religions  in their\tquest  for  liberation,\t but
\n     return to\ttheir old  religion on\tfinding\t that  their
\n     disabilities have clung to them with great tenacity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     (Emphasis ours)
\n     The facts\tof this case appears to be on all fours with
\nthe facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     A number  of High Courts have also taken a view similar
\nto the\tone taken  in Arumugam’s case of 1976 (supra) basing
\nmainly their decisions on the leading case of Jasani. In the
\ncase  of   Goona  Durgaprasada\t Rao   &   Anr.\t  v.   Goona
\nSudarsanaswami &  Ors.,(2) a  Division Bench  of the  Madras
\nHigh Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
189<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “It is  hardly right\tfor the\t Court\tto  erect  a
\n     barrier which  the autonomy  of the  caste does not see
\n     fit to  do, simply\t because in some other caste or some
\n     other community  it might\tbe considered proper that an
\n     expiatory ceremony\t should be  performed. That  a Hindu
\n     having  renounced\t Hinduism  once\t can  revert  to  it
\n     scarcely admits of doubt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A Similar\tview was  expressed  in\t G.  Michael  v.  S.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Venkateswaran(1) which may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A member  of one of the castes or sub-castes when
\n     he is  converted to  Islam ceases to be a member of any
\n     caste. He\tbecomes just  a Mussalman  find his place in
\n     Muslim society  is not determined by the caste to which
\n     he belonged before his conversion. Learned counsel also
\n     conceded that  generally this is so even when there has
\n     been a  conversion to  Christianity. But  he said\tthat
\n     there were\t several cases\tin which  a member of one of
\n     the lower castes who has been converted to Christianity
\n     has continued  not only  to consider  himself as  still
\n     being  a  member  of  the\tcaste,\tbut  has  also\tbeen
\n     considered so by other members of the caste who had not
\n     been  converted……..But\t  these\t are  all  cases  of
\n     exception and  the general\t rule is conversion operates
\n     as an  expulsion from  the\t caste;\t in  other  words  a
\n     convert ceases to have any caste.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, it  was clearly  hinted that\t in some  cases even
\nconverts to  Christianity could retain their original caste.
\nIn the\tcase of Dippala Suri Dora v. V.V. Giri(2) a Division
\nBench of  the Andhra  Pradesh High  Court made the following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Even if  they come  within the  fold of Hinduism,
\n     question would  arise whether they have formed separate
\n     sect among\t themselves, or they would belong to the 4th
\n     class, or\tto the\ttwice-born  class……In  order  to
\n     prove that\t he ceased  to be  a member  of that  tribe,
\n     there should  be first  of all,  evidence of intention,
\n     the reactions of the old body and that of the new body.
\n     Viewed in the light of these observations, the evidence
\n     discussed above,  in our  opinion, falls  short of\t the
\n     test.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
190<\/span><\/p>\n
     This case\tmerely lays  down the triple test enunciated
\nin Jasani’s  case. To  the same\t effect are the decisions in
\nthe cases  of Wilson  Reade v.\tC.S. Booth  & Ors.,(1) and B
\nShyamsunder v. Shankar Deo Vedalankar & Ors.(2)
\n     On a  careful consideration of the authorities referred
\nto above and the principles enunciated by them, the position
\nthat emerges may be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  caste to\t which a  Hindu\t belongs  is
\nessentially determined\tby birth and if a Hindu is converted
\nto  Christianity  or  any  other  religion  which  does\t not
\nrecognise caste,  the conversion  amounts to  a loss  of the
\nsaid caste.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  that arises\tfor consideration is whether
\nthe loss  of the caste is absolute, irrevocable so as not to
\nrevive under  any    circumstances  ?  In  considering\tthis
\nquestion the  courts have gone into the history of the caste
\nsystem and  have formulated the following guiding principles
\nto determine this question:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a) Where\ta person  belonging to\ta scheduled caste is
\nconverted to  Christianity or  Islam, the same involves loss
\nof the caste unless the religion to which he is converted is
\nliberal enough\tto permit  the convertee to retain his caste
\nor the\tfamily laws  by which  he was  originally  governed.
\nThere are  a number  of cases  where members  belonging to a
\nparticular caste  having been  converted to  Christianity or
\neven to\t Islam retain their caste or family laws and despite
\nthe new\t Order they  were permitted  to be governed by their
\nold laws.  But this  can happen\t only if the new religion is
\nliberal and  tolerant enough  to permit\t such  a  course  of
\naction. Where  the new\treligion   however does\t not at\t all
\naccept or believe in the caste system, the loss of the caste
\nwould be  final and  complete. In  a large area of South and
\nsome of\t the North-Eastern  States it is not unusual to find
\npersons converted  to Christianity  retaining their original
\ncaste without violating the tenets of the new Order which is
\ndone as\t a matter  of common  practice existing\t from  times
\nimmemorial. In\tsuch a category of cases, it is obvious that
\neven if\t a person  abjures his old religion and is converted
\nto a  new one,\tthere is no loss of caste. Moreover, it is a
\ncommon feature of many converts to a new religion to believe
\nor have\t faith in  the Saints  belonging to other religions.
\nFor instance  a number\tof Hindus  have faith  in the Muslim
\nSaints, Dargahs, Imam-\n<\/p>\n
191<\/span><\/p>\n
badas which  becomes a\tpart of\t their lives and some Hindus
\neven adopt  muslim names  after the Saints but this does not
\nmean  that  they  have\tdiscarded  the\told  Order  and\t got
\nthemselves converted to Islam\n<\/p>\n
     (b) In  all other\tcases, conversion to Christianity or
\nIslam or  any other religion which does not accept the caste
\nsystem and  insists on\trelinquishing the  caste, there is a
\nloss of caste on conversion.\n<\/p>\n
     The other\timportant question  which is  to be answered
\nand which  is really  the controversy in the present case is
\nif after  a person  is converted  to a new religion – in the
\ninstant case,  Christianity – does his caste revive if he is
\nreconverted to\this old\t religion and,\tif  so,\t under\twhat
\ncircumstances ?\t As indicated above, starting from the Privy
\nCouncil to  the present-day,  authorities of the High Courts
\nand this  Court have  laid down certain norms and conditions
\nunder which  a caste  could revive.  These conditions are as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  where the  convertee exhibits\t by his\t actions and
\n\t  behaviour his\t clear intention of abjuring the new
\n\t  religion  on\t his  own   volition   without\t any
\n\t  persuasion and  is not motivated by any benefit or
\n\t  gain,
\n     (2)  where the  community of the old order to which the
\n\t  convertee originally\tbelonged is  gracious enough
\n\t  to  admit   him  to\tthe  original  caste  either
\n\t  expressly or by necessary intendment, and
\n     (3)  Rules of the new Order in permitting the convertee
\n\t  to join the new caste.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Unless the\t aforesaid conditions  are fulfilled  to the
\nloss of\t caste on  conversion  is  complete  and  cannot  be
\nrevived. In  our opinion having regard to the present set-up
\nand the\t circumstances prevailing  in our modern society, it
\nwill be\t difficult to  insist on the second condition, viz.,
\nthe insistence\ton the members of the community of the caste
\nto admit the convertee on reconversion to the original faith
\nbecause such  a course\tof  action  may\t lead  to  dangerous
\nconsequences and  ill-conceived exploitation.  The curse and
\ncancer of  untouchability despite  thirty  years  of  social
\nreforms still  persist and  no quarter\tshould be  given  to
\nfurther persecution  of the  members of the scheduled castes
\nwho, as\t we often  find,  are  subjected  to  all  kinds  of
\nindignities
\n192<\/span>
\ninsults and are looked down upon as slaves or vassals, meant
\nmerely to serve the members of the higher caste. In the case
\nof Ganpat v. Returning Officer & Ors<\/a> (1) this Court speaking
\nthrough Alagiriswami,  J. highlighted this particular aspect
\nin the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The monstrous  curse of untouchability has got to
\n     be eradicated.  It has  got to be eradicated not merely
\n     by making constitutional provisions or laws but also by
\n     eradicating it  from the  minds and  hearts of men. For
\n     that  it\tis  even  more\timportant  that\t members  of
\n     communities who  are untouchable  should  assert  their
\n     self-respect and  fight for  their\t dignity  than\tthat
\n     members of\t the other  communities should\tforget about
\n     it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In our  opinion, the  main test  should  be  a  genuine
\nintention of  the reconvert  to abjure\this new religion and
\ncompletely dissociate himself from it. We must hasten to add
\nhere that this does not mean that the reconversion should be
\nonly a\truse or a pretext or a cover to gain mundane worldly
\nbenefits so  that the reconversion becomes merely a show for
\nachieving a  particular purpose\t whereas the  real intention
\nmay be\tshrouded in  mystery. The  reconvert must  exhibit a
\nclear and  genuine intention  to go back to his old fold and
\nadopt the customs and practices of the said fold without any
\nprotest from  members of  his erstwhile\t caste. In  order to
\njudge this  factor, it is not necessary that there should be
\na direct  or conclusive proof of the expression of the views
\nof the\tcommunity of  the erstwhile  caste and\tit would  be
\nsufficient compliance  of this\tcondition if no exception or
\nprotest is  lodged by  the community  members, in which case
\nthe caste  would revive on the reconversion of the person to
\nhis old religion.\n<\/p>\n
     Another aspect which one must not forget is that when a
\nchild is  born neither has he any religion nor is he capable
\nof choosing  one until\the reaches the age of discretion and
\nacquires proper\t understanding of  the situation. Hence, the
\nmere fact  that the parents of a child, who were Christians,
\nwould in  ordinary course  get the usual baptism certificate
\nand perform  other ceremonies without the child knowing that
\nis being  done but  after the child has grown up and becomes
\nfully mature  and able\tto decide his future he ought not to
\nbe bound  by what  his parents\tmay have done. Therefore, in
\nsuch cases, it is the intention of the convertee which would
\ndetermine
\n193<\/span>
\nthe revival  of the  caste. If\tby his\tclear and conclusive
\nconduct the  person reconverts\tto his old faith and abjures
\nthe  new   religion  in\t  unequivocal\tterms,\t his   caste
\nautomatically revives.\n<\/p>\n
     Another dominant factor to determine the revival of the
\ncaste of  a convert  from Christianity\tto his\told religion
\nwould be  that in  cases of election to the State Assemblies
\nor the\tParliament where  under\t the  Presidential  Order  a
\nparticular constituency\t is reserved  for a  member  of\t the
\nscheduled caste or tribe and the electorate gives a majority
\nverdict in  his favour,\t then this  would be doubtless proof
\npositive of  the fact  that his\t community has\taccepted him
\nback to\t his old  fold and this would result in a revival of
\nthe original caste to which the said candidate belonged.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t our   opinion,\t when\ta  person  is  converted  to
\nChristianity or\t some  other  religion\tthe  original  caste
\nremains under  eclipse and  as soon  as during his\/her life-
\ntime the  person is reconverted to the original religion the
\neclipse disappears  and\t the  caste  automatically  revives.
\nWhether or  not the  revial of the caste depends on the will
\nand discretion\tof the members of the community of the caste
\nis a  question on  which we  refrain from giving any opinion
\nbecause in  the instant case, there is overwhelming evidence
\nto show that the respondent was accepted by the community of
\nher original  katia caste.  Even so,  if  the  fact  of\t the
\nacceptance by  the  members  of\t the  community\t is  made  a
\ncondition precedent  to the  revival of\t the caste, it would
\nlead to\t grave consequences  and  unnecessary  exploitation,
\nsometimes motivated  by political considerations. Of course,
\nif apart  from the  oral views of the community there is any
\nrecognised documentary\tproof of a custom or code of conduct
\nor rule\t of law\t binding on  a particular  caste, it  may be
\nnecessary to  insist on\t the consent  of the  members of the
\ncommunity, otherwise in normal circumstances the caste would
\nrevive by applying the principles of doctrine of eclipse. We
\nmight pause  here to add a rider to what we have said, i.e.,
\nwhere it  appears that\tthe person  reconverted to  the\t old
\nreligion had  been converted  to Christianity  since several
\ngenerations, it\t may be\t difficult to  apply the doctrine of
\neclipse to the revival of caste. However, that question does
\nnot arise here.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming now\t to the\t facts and  evidence of\t the present
\ncase the position may be briefly stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant,  an M.A., LL.B. from Jabalpur University
\nhad contested  election from the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
\n(here-\n<\/p>\n
194<\/span><\/p>\n
inafter referred  to  as  ‘Vidhan  Sabha)  from\t Legislative
\nAssembly constituency  No. 195\tin the\tgeneral election  of
\n1977 as\t a Janata  Party Candidate  which was  reserved\t for
\nScheduled Caste\t under Art.  332 of  the Constitution  being
\nitem No.  30 of Part IX-Madhya Pradesh of the 1950 Order. He
\nwas declared  elected defeating his nearest rival candidate,
\none Ramprasad  Choudhary, a  Congress candidate.  The Vidhan
\nSabha was,  however, dissolved\tin February 1980 after which
\ngeneral elections for all the constituencies were to be held
\nafresh, as  notified in\t the Gazette,  in the  month of\t May
\n1980.  The  last  date\tfor  filing  nomination\t papers\t was
\n2.5.1980, the  date of\tscrutiny was  3.5.80 and the polling
\ntook place  on 31.5.80. The results were declared on 2.6.80.
\nIn this\t election, the\tappellant submitted  his  nomination
\npapers as an Independent candidate from constituency No. 195
\n(Jabalpur East)\t and was  opposed by  Smt. Maya Devi Shalwar
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘Maya  Devi’)  who  filed\t her
\nnomination papers as a Congress (I) candidate. She described
\nherself as belonging to the scheduled caste ‘Katia’ which is
\nmentioned at  serial No. 29 of Part IX-Madhya Pradesh of the
\n1950 Order.  In view of the short and narrow compass of this
\nappeal we are not concerned with other candidates.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be mentioned  that originally the caste ‘Katia’
\nwas not\t included in  the list\tof scheduled castes till the
\nyear 1977  but by  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
\nOrder (Amendment)  Act, 1976  (Act  No.\t 108  of  1976)\t the
\nschedule was amended and replaced by a new Schedule in which
\nKatia caste  was included  as a scheduled caste and shown at
\nserial No.29.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that at  the time  of the  scrutiny of\t the
\nnomination papers  of  Maya  Devi,  several  persons  raised
\nobjection that she, being a Christian by birth, could not be
\ntreated as a member of the scheduled caste and therefore her
\ndeclaration as\ta scheduled  caste candidate was false which
\nmerited dismissal of her nomination papers. The case of Maya
\nDevi was  that she  was a  member of  the scheduled caste by
\nbirth and her husband, Jai Prakash Shalwar, also belonged to
\nthe Katia  caste. She  denied that  she was  a Christian  by
\nbirth and averred that her father’s name was not John Wesley
\nas alleged  by the appellant. Her plea found favour with the
\nReturning Officer  who accepted her nomination papers. After
\nthe poll,  Maya Devi  received\tmajority  of  votes,  having
\nsecured 16,770\tvotes, and  was declared  elected,  and\t the
\nappellant lost the election.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  further alleged by the appellant that Maya Devi
\nafter
\n195<\/span>
\nbeing born  a Christian\t was baptised according to Christian
\nrites and  her mother’s\t name was  Elizabeth. The  appellant
\nalso averred  that Maya\t Devi’s marriage  with\tJai  Prakash
\nShalwar\t was   not  a\trecognised  form  of  marriage\tand,
\ntherefore, not\tvalid. A  number of  other pleas  were\talso
\ntaken by  the appellant\t in his petition but Mr. U.R. Lalit,
\nappearing on  his behalf,  confined  his  arguments  to\t two
\nimportant questions:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  whether Maya\tDevi having  been born\tof Christian
\n\t  parents lost\tthe katia  caste to which she or her
\n\t  ancestors originally belonged ? and
\n     (2)  that after  being baptised  she continued  to be a
\n\t  Christian  and   was\tshown  as  such\t in  various
\n\t  documents.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this  view of  the matter it was contended that even
\nif she\tmarried Jai  Prakash Shalwar  who belonged  to Katia
\ncaste,\ther   caste  could   not  revive  because  caste  is
\ndetermined not by marriage but by birth.\n<\/p>\n
     In proof  of his pleas, the appellant adduced both oral
\nand documentary\t evidence. The\tallegations made by him were
\ndenied by  the respondent  who categorically stated that she
\nwas never a Christian nor was she born a Christian. She also
\naverred that  even her father or mother were not Christians.
\nOn the other hand, she always remained a member of the Katia
\ncaste and  was accepted\t as such  by  the  members  of\tthat
\ncommunity because  her marriage with Jai Prakash Shalwar was
\nperformed according to Hindu rites of Aryasamaj seet and was
\nattended by  a number  of  members  of\ther  caste  and\t due
\npublicity was given to the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
     Both the  parties have  adduced evidence  in support of
\ntheir cases.  One important  fact which may be noted here is
\nthat the  father of the respondent John Wesley who according
\nto Maya Devi was. John Wesley singh, in spite of being cited
\nas a witness did not enter the witness box to throw light on
\nthe origin  of the  religion of\t the respondent\t and a\thuge
\ncapital\t has   been  made  of  the  non-appearance  possible
\ncircumstance to discredit the case of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  the father  of the respondent was not
\nexamined as a witness but having regard to the nature of the
\ndocuments produced
\n196<\/span>
\nby the\tparties the  mere fact\tthat  John  Wesley  was\t not
\nexamined as a witness is not sufficient to throw the case of
\nthe respondent\taboard. It  is also true that the respondent
\nwas ill-advised\t to deny the entire case of the appellant by
\nmaking an  averment that  she  was  not\t born  of  Christian
\nparents at  all. We would, therefore, take it as established
\nthat  the  respondent  was  undoubtedly\t born  of  Christian
\nparents. That  by itself  does not  advance the\t case of the
\nappellant any  further because\tif it is proved that she was
\nvoluntarily reconverted\t to Hinduism  then according  to the
\nlaw referred  to us  and applied to the facts of the present
\ncase on\t reconversion her original caste would automatically
\nrevive. We  would give\ta brief summary of the nature of the
\nevidence produced by the parties on this limited question.\n<\/p>\n
     To begin  with the\t appellant has\trelied on  the birth
\ncertificate (Ex.  P-21) which  shows that a female child was
\nborn to\t John Wesley’s\twife on 4.6.1947. It is also clearly
\nmentioned therein that John Wesley was a Christian. This was
\nfollowed by  a baptism\tcertificate which shows that she was
\nbaptised  according  to\t the  religious\t ceremonies  of\t the
\nChristians. The\t appellant also produced a Church membership
\ncertificate  to\t  show\tthat   Maya  Isabella\tJohn  Wesley
\n(respondent) was  baptised and\tadmitted as  a member of the
\nCity Methodist\tChurch in  Southern Asia at Jabalpur, Madhya
\nPradesh. The  school  transfer\tcertificate  dated  6.6.1956
\nshows that  Maya Isabella  John Wesley\twas a  Christian and
\nremained a  student of\tPeeli Kothi  Girls  Primary  School,
\nJabalpur from  1.7.1952 to  30.4.1956, and her date of birth
\nin this\t certificate has  been shown as 4.6.1947 which fully
\ntallies\t with\ther  birth   certificate.  In  view  of\t the
\noverwhelming evidence referred to above, it is not necessary
\nfor us\tto consider  the oral and documentary evidence which
\nconclusively proves-(1)\t that the  parents of the respondent
\nwere Christians\t and  (2)  that\t after\ther  birth  she\t got
\nbaptised and  remained a  Christian, and therefore it cannot
\nbe denied  that the  respondent was  born a Christian and in
\nthis view  of the  matter the moment she entered the fold of
\nChristianity, her  original caste  was completely  lost. The
\nrespondent in her anxiety to succeed has overstated her case
\nby wrongly  alleging that  she was  never born\tof Christian
\nparents or  that her  parents were  not Christians,  a\tfact
\nwhich is  completely falsified\tby the\toral and documentary
\nevidence produced by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Accepting,\t therefore,   the  evidence   led   by\t the
\nappellant, the vital question for determination in this case
\nremains as  to whether or not the respondent was voluntarily
\nreconverted to\tHinduism and  thereupon her  caste  revived.
\nThere is clear and unimpeachable
\n197<\/span>
\nevidence to show that the respondent had reconverted herself
\nto Hinduism  voluntarily and  with full publicity, making no
\nsecret of  this fact.  A letter\t appearing at page 22 of the
\nPaperbook shows\t that she  accepted Hindu  religion with all
\nits customs  and rites voluntarily. The relevant part of the
\nletter reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  I am\tprepared to  own  Hindu\t religion  with\t all
\n     sincerity and to follow all its customs and rites.
\n\t  Today, on  6.11.76 I\tam fully  major.  Hence\t the
\n     above  decision  is  of  my  own  wherein\tno  external
\n     interference exists.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Immediately thereafter  she  was  married\tto  one\t Jai
\nPrakash Shalwar\t and the marriage certificate dated 14.11.76
\nfully corroborates this fact (page 24 of the Paperbook). The
\nMarriage certificate  states that  the marriage of Maya Devi
\nwith Jai  Prakash was  performed on  6.11.76 in\t Arya  Samaj
\nGorakhpur according  to\t vedic\trites.\tAnother\t certificate
\nissued by the Secretary of the Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur is also
\nto the\tsame  effect.  The  aforesaid  documents  are  amply
\ncorroborated by the oral evidence led by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of Darshanlal  Dharmak  deserves  special
\nmention because\t this witness  was a  prominent\t member\t and
\nPresident of the Katia community for the last two-and-a half
\nyears. The  witness goes  on to\t state that the marriage was
\ncelebrated in  the presence  of 80 persons of his community,
\nincluding elderly  people and  his presence  at the marriage
\nclearly indicates  that the community had fully accepted the
\nrespondent back to her caste. The marriage was followed by a
\nreception 3-4  days later which was attended by this witness
\nalso and at that time nobody raised any objection about Maya
\nas not belonging to the Katia community. The witness further
\nstates that  he had  gone to the house of the respondent and
\nthat members  of the  community had  come to  celebrate\t the
\nbirthday of her child.\n<\/p>\n
     It would  appear from  the evidence  of Bhaiyalal\tNag,
\nanother witness produced by the respondent, that there was a
\nKatia Samaj  Sanstha in\t Madhya Pradesh which was registered
\nunder the Societies Registration Act and the witness was the
\nVice-President of  this organisation.  He  states  that\t Jai
\nPrakash was  known to him and belonged to his caste and that
\nhe was\tmarried to  Maya Devi.\tHe further  states  that  no
\nobjection  was\t raised\t in   the  Organisation\t about\tthis
\nmarriage.  He\tfurther\t stated\t that  Maya  Devi  had\tbeen
\nattending number  of marriages in his caste. He makes a very
\nstark statement which is
\n198<\/span>
\nfully supported\t by the\t Abhinandan Patra  and his statement
\nmay be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We mentioned\t her in\t this  Abhinandan  Patra  as
\n     belonging to  Katia caste\tas we  were proud as she was
\n     the first M.L.A. in our caste.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ex. D-1A  is the  Abhinandan Patra\t given to  Maya Devi
\nsome time  in the  year 1977-78,  i.e. 3  years\t before\t the
\nelections. Furthermore,\t there is  the\tevidence  of  Keshav
\nPrasad Pathak  which is rather important. His evidence shows
\nthat a\tjoint application was made by the respondent and her
\nhusband regarding  their consent to the marriage. He further
\nstated that  before the\t parties are  married, if  either of
\nthem is\t not a\tHindu then he is first converted to Hinduism
\n(Shudhikaran) by  religious rites  performed  in  accordance
\nwith the  Arya Samaj rites. He proves the applications given
\nby the\trespondent and\ther husband  (Ex. P-8 and 9). He has
\nfurther\t stated\t  that\tthe  marriage  ceremony\t is  usually
\nperformed before  the members  of the Executive Committee of
\nthe Arya  Samaj. He further defines the term ‘Shudhikaran to
\nmean “Convert  non-Hindu to Hinduism. He goes on to say that
\nthe marriage  was celebrated  at the Arya Samaj according to
\nvedic ceremony which included Sapta-padi and Havan.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant himself in his statement admitted that in
\nJabalpur there are five-six thousands people of katia caste.
\nHe further admitted that he did not make any enquiries about
\nthe parents  or the  place of residence of Elizabeth, mother
\nof the\trespondent. He\tfurther admits\tat page\t 87  of\t the
\nPaperbook that in 1978 he was taken by Shri Dharmak as Chief
\nGuest in  the Conference  of Katia  Samaj. A  suggestion was
\nmade to\t him that  he was  present when\t the Katia community
\nhonoured the  respondent on  her victory  in  the  election.
\nReading in  between the\t lines of  his evidence\t it is clear
\nthat he\t was  fully  aware  that  the  respondent  had\tbeen
\nreconverted to\tHinduism and  had been accepted by the Katia
\ncommunity.\n<\/p>\n
     On a  full and  complete  appraisal  of  the  oral\t and
\ndocumentary  evidence,\t the   following   conclusions\t are
\ninevitable:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  That the  respondent was born of Christian parents
\n\t  and\twas   educated\t in   various\tschools\t  or
\n\t  institutions where she-was known as a Christian,
\n     (2)  that 3-4 years before the election, the respondent
\n\t  was
\n199<\/span>
\n\t  reconverted to  Hinduism and\tmarried Jai  Prakash
\n\t  Shalwar, a  member of\t the katia  caste, and\talso
\n\t  performed the Shudhikaran ceremony,
\n     (3)  that she  was not  only accepted but also welcomed
\n\t  by the  important members, including the President
\n\t  and Vice-President, of the community,
\n     (4)  there is  no evidence\t to show  that there was any
\n\t  bar under  the Christian religion which could have
\n\t  prevented  her   from\t reconverting\therself\t  to
\n\t  Hinduism.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  that there  was no  evidence to show that even her
\n\t  parents had  been Christians\tfrom  generation  to
\n\t  generation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In these  circumstances, therefore,  this case  fulfils
\nthe conditions\trequired for  being reconverted\t to Hinduism
\nfrom Christianity in order to revive the original caste.\n<\/p>\n
     Under cl. (3) of the 1950 Order only two conditions are
\nrequired for  being eligible  for  election  to\t a  reserved
\nconstituency-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  that the  candidate should  not profess a religion
\n\t  different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  that the  candidate is a member of scheduled caste
\n\t  as shown in the schedules.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  instant case, it is not disputed that the Katia
\ncaste is  mentioned as\ta scheduled  caste in part IX of the
\n1950 Order and shown at serial Number 29.\n<\/p>\n
     Having regard  to the circumstances discussed above, it
\ncannot be  said that  at the  time when the respondent filed
\nher nomination\tpapers, she  was not  a member\tof the Katia
\ncaste.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons given  above, the judgment of the High
\nCourt is  affirmed and\tthe appeal  is dismissed  but in the
\ncircumstances without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\tAppeal dismissed\n200<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 600, 1984 SCR (2) 176 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: KAILASH SONKAR Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. MAYA DEVI DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1983 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA MISRA, R.B. (J) THAKKAR, M.P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-30T00:00:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"49 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-30T00:00:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\"},\"wordCount\":8112,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\",\"name\":\"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-30T00:00:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-30T00:00:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"49 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983","datePublished":"1983-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-30T00:00:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983"},"wordCount":8112,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983","name":"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-30T00:00:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-sonkar-vs-smt-maya-devi-on-16-december-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147624","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}