{"id":199097,"date":"1983-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983"},"modified":"2015-09-25T09:20:46","modified_gmt":"2015-09-25T03:50:46","slug":"s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983","title":{"rendered":"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 411, \t\t 1984 SCR (1) 973<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. ANBALAGAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nB. DEVARAJAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/12\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR  411\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 973\n 1984 SCC  (2) 112\t  1983 SCALE  (2)849\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1984 SC 600\t (19)\n R\t    1984 SC1260\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\n     Hindu  Law-Hindu\tembracing  another  religion-whether\nretains original  cast. On  reconversion to Hinduism-Whether\nperformance of\tany particular\tceremony or  expiatory rites\nnecessary.\n     Representation   of   the\t people\t  Act.-Parliamentary\nelection-Constituency reserved\tfor scheduled castes-Whether\na Hindu\t Adi Dravida  (scheduled cast)\ton  reconversion  to\nHinduism belongs to scheduled castes.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The first\trespondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from\na constituency\twhich was reserved for the Scheduled Castes,\nThe  appellant\t challenged  the   election  of\t  the  first\nrespondent on  the ground  that he  was not  a member of the\nScheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first\nrespondent belonged  to the  Scheduled Caste  and upheld the\nelection. Hence\t this appeal.  The appellant  urged that the\nparents and  the sisters  of the respondent were shown to be\nChristians and the respondent was born a Christian and there\nwas no\tway he\tcould acquire  a caste\tand  become  an\t Adi\nDravida on conversion to Hinduism.\n     Dismissing the appeal.\n^\n     HELD: At  all relevant time, the first respondent was a\nHindu Adi  Dravida and\tprofessed  no  religion\t other\tthan\nHinduism.\n     The precedents  particularly those\t from  South  India,\nclearly establish  that no particular ceremony is prescribed\nfor reconversion  to Hinduism  of a  person who\t had earlier\nembraced another  religion. Unless the practice of the Caste\nmakes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and,\nordinarily, he\tregains this caste unless the community does\nnot accept  him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that\nhe regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he\nnever lost  his caste in the first instance when he embraced\nanother religion.  The practice\t of caste however irrational\nit may\tappear to  our reason  and however  repugnant it may\nappear to  our moral  and social  sense, is so deeprooted in\nthe Indian  people that\t its mark does not seem to disappear\non conversion  to a different religion. If it disappears, it\ndisappears only to re\n974\nappear on  reconversion. The  mark of caste does not seem to\nreally\tdisappear   even  after\t  some\t generations   after\nconversion. [981A-C]\n     Administrator-General of  Madras v.  Anandachari & Ors.\nILR 9  MADRAS 466,  Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani &\nOrs. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67\nMADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth,\nAIR 1937  MAD 172,  Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami,\nILR 1940  MAD 653,  Rajgopal v.\t Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR\n254, Rajgopal  v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v;\nPonnuswami [1971]  I SCR  49, Vermani  v. Vermani  AIR\t1943\nLAHORE 51  and Chatturbhuj  Vithaldas  Jasani  v.  Moreshwer\nParashram & Ors.<\/a>[1954] SCR 817, referred to.\n     In the  instant case  the birth  extract of  the  first\nrespondent shows  his parents as Hindu Adi Dravidas. Through\nout his\t educational career,  he  was  treated\tas  a  Hindu\nstudent belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes  and was awarded\nscholarships on\t that basis.  The school records relating to\nhis children  also show them as Hindu Adi Dravidas. He never\nattended a  church. On\tthe other  hand there  is acceptable\nevidence to  show that\the was\toffering  worship  to  Hindu\ndeities in Hindu temples and that his marriage was performed\naccording to  Hindu custom and rites. Even assuming that the\nparents and  sisters of\t the  first  respondent\t had  become\nChristians and\tthat the  first respondent  himself had been\nbaptised  when\t he  was  seven\t months\t old,  there  is  no\ndifficulty in holding, on the evidence in the case, that the\nfirst respondent  had long since reverted to Hinduism and to\nthe Adi\t Dravida Caste.\t There is  not a scrap of acceptable\nevidence to  show that\the ever professed Christianity after\nhe came\t of age, On the other hand, every bit of evidence in\nthe case  shows that  from  his\t childhood,  he\t was  always\npractising Hinduism and was treated by everyone concerned as\nan Adi\tDravida. There\tis then the outstanding circumstance\nthat  the  voters  of  the  Constituency  reserved  for\t the\nScheduled Castes  accepted his\tcandidature for the reserved\nseat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. [891H; 892A-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 544 of
\n1981.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated 23rd December, 1980
\nof the\tMadras High Court at Madras in Election Petition No.
\n1 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.N. Ramalngam and A.T.M. Sampath for
\nthe Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     M.C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and K.S. Chowdhary
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     A.V. Rangam for the Respondent No. 7.\n<\/p>\n
975<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Judgment  of the  Court was  delivered by CHINNAPPA
\nREDDY, J. 3, 26, 112 adult men and women voters of Rasipuram
\nParliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes
\naccepted  the\tcandidature  of\t the  first  Respondent,  B.
\nDevarajan for  the reserved  seat, apparently considered him
\nas a  member of\t the Scheduled\tCastes, voted  for  him\t and
\nelected him  to the  Lok Sabha,\t by a convincing majority of
\nnearly sixty  thousand votes at the election held in January
\n1980. And,  it was  not the  first time.  He was  in fact  a
\nsitting member of the Lok Sabha having been elected from the
\nsame reserved  constituency at the previous general election
\nalso, But  the verdict\tof the people was not sufficient for
\nthe appellant,\tS. Anbalagan,  who secured 1,76,240 votes in
\nthe January  1980 poll\tand lost the election. He wanted the
\nverdict of  an Election Tribunal on the question whether the
\nrespondent  was\t a  Charistian\tand  not  a  member  of\t the
\nScheduled Castes, as claimed by him. So he filed an election
\npetition  questioning  the  election  on  that\tground.\t The
\nElection Tribunal  on  an  eleborate  consideration  of\t the
\nevidence held  that the\t appellant belonged to the Scheduled
\nCastes and,  on that finding, upheld the election. Anbalagan
\nhas preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr.  Chitale,   learned  counsel\tfor  the  appellant,
\ncanvassed the  finding of  the Election\t Tribunal  that\t the
\nrespondent was\ta Hindu Adi Dravida and, therefore, a member
\nof the\tScheduled Castes. He argued that the parents and the
\nsisters of  the respondent  were shown\tto be Christians and
\nthe respondent\tthough obviously  a  Christian\thimself\t was
\npretending to  be, a  member of the Scheduled Castes for the
\npurpose of gaining some advantages. He invited our attention
\nto the Baptismal certificate and certain other documents and
\nurged that the Respondent was born a Christian and there was
\nno way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on
\nconversion to Hinduism.\n<\/p>\n
     In order to properly appreciate the questions involved,
\nit is  necessary first\tto understand  the legal position in
\nregard to  caste status\t on conversion\tor  reconversion  to
\nHinduism.\n<\/p>\n
     In Administrator-General  of Madras  v.  Anandachari  &
\nOthers(1), a  learned single  Judge of the Madras High Court
\nheld that  the conversion of a Hindu Brahmin to Christianity
\nrendered him,  according to  Hindu Law,\t an  out  caste\t and
\ndegraded. It was also observed that the degradation might be
\natoned for  and the  convert readmitted\t to his\t status as a
\nBrahmin, if he at any time during his
\n976<\/span>
\nlife renounced\tChristianity  and  performed  the  rites  of
\nexpiation enjoined by his caste.\n<\/p>\n
     In Muthusami  Mudaliar & Anr. v. Masilamani & Others(1)
\nShankaran Nair,\t J.  explained\tat  length  the\t process  of
\nformation of  castes and  also pointed\tout how\t simple\t the
\nmatter of  reconversion to Hinduism was when a Hindu changed
\nhis religion and later reverted back to Hinduism.\n<\/p>\n
     In Gurusami  Nadar v. Irulappa Konar(2), Varadachariar,
\nJ. explained  the observations\tmade  in  certain  cases  by
\nAnanta Krishna\tIyer, J.  about the  necessity of  expiatory
\nceremonies for reconversion to Hinduism and pointed out that
\nin those  cases,  the  alleged\treconversion  was  into\t the
\nBrahmin community  of Hindus  and it was possible to suggest
\nthat certain  vedic rites  would have  been adopted  in such
\ncases. Expiatory  ceremonies, it  was further  pointed\tout,
\nwould be necessary if such was the practice of the community
\nand not\t otherwise. One\t had, therefore, only to look to the
\nsense of  the community\t and no\t more. In  Ramayya  v.\tMrs.
\nJosephine   Elizabeth(3)    Venkatasubba   Rao,\t   OCJ\t and
\nVenkataramana  Rao,   J.  approved   the   observations\t  of
\nVaradachariar, J.  and thought\tit unnecessary to pursue the
\nmatter further.\t Mookett and  Krishnaswami Ayyangar,  JJ. in
\nGoona Durgaprasad  Rao v.  Sudarsanaswami(4) observed that a
\nconvert\t from\tthe  Baliji   caste  to\t  Christianity,\t  on
\nreconversion went back into the fold of the Baliji community
\nand where  there was  no evidence  about the  necessity\t for
\nexpiatory ceremonies,  it was  hardly right for the court to
\nerect a\t barrier which\tthe autonomy  of the  caste did\t not
\nrequire, simply\t because, in  some other community expiatory
\nceremonies were thought necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     In Rajagopal  v. Armugam  and others<\/a>(5),  the appellant
\nwas elected  from a constituency reserved for members of the
\nSchedule Castes\t and the  election  was\t questioned  on\t the
\nground that  he was  not a Hindu but a Christian and that he
\nwas not\t qualified be  elected from  a constituency reserved
\nfor the Scheduled Castes. The
\n977<\/span>
\ncourt found  that the  appellant had  become a\tChristian in
\n1949 and  that from  about 1967 onwards he certainly started
\nprofessing the\tHindu religion. The court however, held that
\nthe appellant  had lost\t his  Adi  Dravida  Hindu  caste  on
\nembracing Christianity\tand,  on  the  evidence\t before\t the
\ncourt, it  was not possible to hold that he had regained his
\ncaste on  reconversion to  Cinduism.  The  general  question
\nwhether\t membership   of  a   caste  could  be\tacquired  by
\nconversion or  reconversion to\tHinduism was  not decided in
\nthe case,
\n     Rajagopal, who  succeeded at the election held in 1967,
\nbut whose election was set aside on the ground that he was a
\nChristian and  not a  member of\t the  Scheduled\t Castes\t and
\nArmugam who  lost the  election in  1967,  but\tsuccessfully
\nchallenged the\telection of  Rajagopal by way of an election
\npetition (vide\tRajagopal v.  Armugam<\/a>(1) referred  to in the
\nprevious paragraph)  were again\t contestants at the election
\nheld in 1972 from the same constituency reserved for members
\nof the\tScheduled Castes,  Rajgopal was\t again Successful in
\nthe election.  His  election  was  once\t more  impeached  by
\nArumugam. But this time Rajgopal farred better. His election
\nwas upheld  first by  the High Court and then by the Supreme
\nCourt: (1976  (3) S.C.R. 82) The Supreme Court held that the
\nQuestion whether Rajagopal embraced Christianity in 1949 and
\nwhether he was reconeverted to Hinduism was concluded by the
\nearlier dectsion of the court. The view of the High Court ie
\nthe immediate  case before  them  that\ton  reconversion  to
\nHinduism, he  could revert  to his  original caste if he was
\naccepted as  such by  the other\t members of  the  caste\t was
\naccepted as correct On the evidence, it was found that after
\nreconversion to Hinduism he was recognised and accepted as a
\nmember of  the Adi  Dravida Hindu caste by the other members
\nof the\tcommunity. The\tcourt consisting  of Chandrachud, J.
\n(as he then was), Bhagwati and Sarkaria, JJ. noticed that it
\nwas not an infrequent phenomenon-in South India for a person
\nto continue  to be  regarded as\t belonging to  his  original
\ncaste even after conversion to Christianity The decisions of
\nthe High  Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kothapalli Narasayya v.
\nJammana Jogi  and K.  Narasimha\t Reddy\tv.G.  Bhupatti\twere
\nnoticed. It was then observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It cannot, therefore, be laid down as an absolute
\n978<\/span>
\n     rule uniformly  applicable in all cases that whenever a
\n     member  of\t a  caste  is  converted  from\tHinduism  to
\n     Christianity, he  loses his membership of the caste. It
\n     is\t true\tthat  ordinarily   that\t on   conversion  to
\n     Christianity, he  would cease  to be  a member  of\t the
\n     caste, but\t that is  not an  invariable rule.  It would
\n     depend on\tthe structure of the caste and its rules and
\n     regulations. There\t are castes,  particularly in  South
\n     India,  where   the  consequence  does  not  follow  on
\n     conversion since  such castes  comprise from Hindus and
\n     Christians”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The learned  Judges than  proceeded to consider the question
\nwhether Rajagopal  could once  again become  a member of Adi
\nDravida caste even if it was assume that he had ceased to be
\nsuch on\t conversion to\tChristianity. After referring to the
\nMadras cases already noticed by us earlier, it was held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “These cases\tshow that  the consistent view taken
\n     in this  country from the time Administrator-General of
\n     Madras v. Anandachari was decided, that is, since 1886,
\n     has been that on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can
\n     once again become a member of the caste in which he has
\n     born and  to which\t he belonged  before  conversion  to
\n     another religion,\tif the\tmembers of  the caste accept
\n     him as a member. There is no reason either on principle
\n     or on  authority which  should compel  us to  disregard
\n     this view\twhich has prevailed for almost a century and
\n     lay down  a different  rule on the subject. If a person
\n     who has embraced another religion can be reconverted to
\n     Hinduism, there  is no rational principle why he should
\n     not be  able to  come back\t to his\t caste, if the other
\n     members of\t the csste  are prepared to readmit him as a
\n     member. It\t stands to  reason that he should be able to
\n     come back\tto  the\t fold  to  which  he  once  belonged
\n     provided of course the community is willing to take him
\n     within the fold ..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “……. A  Mahar or a Koli or a Mala would not be
\n     recognised as  anything but a Mahar or a Koli or a Mala
\n     after reconversion to Hinduism and he would suffer from
\n     the same social and economic disabilities from which he
\n     suffered before  he was  converted to another religion.
\n     It is,  therefore, obvious\t that the object and purpose
\n     of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
\n979<\/span>
\n     order, 1950  would be  advanced rather than retarded by
\n     taking the\t view that  on reconversion  to\t Hinduism  a
\n     person can\t once again become a member of the Scheduled
\n     Caste to  which he belonged prior to his conversion. We
\n     accordingly agree with the view taken by the High Court
\n     that on  reconversion to  Hinduism, the  1st respondent
\n     could once\t again revert  to his  original Adi  Dravida
\n     caste if  he was  accepted as such by the other members
\n     of the cast.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Perumal\t Nader v.  Ponnuswami,<\/a>(1) the question arose
\nwhether Annapazham,  daughter of  an  Indian  Christian\t and
\nherself a Christian by birth. could be converted to Hinduism
\nwithout the  performance of  any expiatory  ceremonies ? The
\ncourt held that formal ceremony of purification or expiation
\nwas unnecessary. It was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A  person   may  be\t a  Hindu  by  birth  or  by
\n     conversion. A  mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu
\n     faith by  a persion  born in  another  faith  does\t not
\n     convert him  into a  Hindu, nor  is a  bare declaration
\n     that he  is  a  Hindu  sufficient\tto  convert  him  to
\n     Hinduism, But  a bona fide intention to be converted to
\n     the Hindu\tfaith, accompanied  by conduct unequivocally
\n     expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of
\n     conversion.  No  formal  ceremony\tof  purification  or
\n     expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion.”
\n     All the  cases so\tfar considered are from South India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To conclude  the discussion, we may also refer to Vermani v.
\nVermani(2) and\tGhatturbhuj Vithaldas  Jasani  v.  Moreshwer
\nParashram  &   others<\/a>(3)  both\t of  which  are\t cases\tfrom
\nelsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
     In Virmani\t v. Virmani, a Full Bench of the Lahore High
\nCourt following the decision of the Madras High Court in ILR
\n1940 MADRAS  653 held  that it was not necessary for a Hindu
\nconvert to  Christianity to undergo any expiatory ceremonies
\nbefore he could revert to his original religion. His conduct
\nand the circumstance that
\n980<\/span>
\nhe  was\t  received  by\this  community\twere  sufficient  to
\nestablish his reversion to Hinduism.\n<\/p>\n
     In Chatturbhnj’s  case,  a\t question  arose  whether  a
\nmember of  the Mahar  caste which  was one  of the Scheduled
\nCastes continued  to be\t a member of the Mahar caste despite
\nhis conversion\tto the tenets Mahanubhava Panth, a sect, the
\nfounder\t of   which  repudiated\t  the  caste  system  and  a
\nmultiplicity  of   Gods.  Bose,\t  J.  after   noticing\t the
\ncomplexities brought in the train of conversion, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Looked at  from the\tsecular point of view, there
\n     are three\tfactors which have to be considered: (1) the
\n     reactions of  the old  body, (2)  the intentions of the
\n     individual himself\t and (3) the rules of the new order.
\n     If the  old order is tolerant of the new faith and sees
\n     no reason to outcaste or ex-communicate the convert and
\n     the individual  himself desires  and intends  to retain
\n     his old  social and  political ties,  the conversion is
\n     only nominal  for all  practical purposes\tand when  we
\n     have to  consider the legsl and political rights of the
\n     old body  the views of the new faith hardly matter. The
\n     new body  is free to ostracise and outcaste the convert
\n     from its  fold if he does not adhere to its tenets, but
\n     it can  hardly claim  the right to interfere in matters
\n     which concern the political rights of the old body when
\n     neither the  old body nor the convert is seeking either
\n     legal or  political favours  from the new as opposed to
\n     purely spiritual  advantage. On  the other hand, if the
\n     convert has  shown by his conduct and dealings that his
\n     break from\t the old order is so complete and final that
\n     he no  longer regards  himself as\ta member  of the old
\n     body and  there is\t no reconversion and readmittance to
\n     the old  fold, it\twould be  wrong to  hold that he can
\n     nevertheless claim\t temporal privileges  and  political
\n     advantages which are special to the old order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Bose, J. found that whatever the views of the founder of the
\nMahanubhava sect night have been about caste, it was evident
\nthat there  had been  no rigid\tadherance to  them among his
\nfollowers in later years. They had either changed their view
\nor they\t had not  been able  to keep  a tight enough control
\nover converts  who choose to retain their old caste customs.
\nOn a consideration of the evidence it was
\n981<\/span>
\nfound that  the convert\t from the  Mahar caste\tretained his
\ncaste even after conversion.\n<\/p>\n
     These precedents,\tparticularly those from South India,
\nclearly establish  that no particular ceremony is prescribed
\nfor conversion\tto Hinduism  of a  person  who\thad  earlier
\nembraced another  religion. Unless the practice of the caste
\nmakes it  necessary, expiatory\trites need be performed and,
\nordinarily, he\tregains his  caste unless the community does
\nnot accept  him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that
\nhe regains his caste; it may be more accurate to say that he
\nnever lost  his caste in the first instance when he embraced
\nanother religion.  The practice\t of caste however irrational
\nit may\tappear to  our reason  and however  repugnant it may
\nappear to our moral and social science, is so deep-rooted in
\nthe Indian  people that\t its mark does not seem to disappear
\nonly conversion\t to a  different religion. If it disappears,
\nonly to reappear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not
\nseem to\t really disappear  even after some generations after
\nconversion. In\tAndhra Pradesh\tand in Tamil Nadu, there are
\nseveral thousands  of Christian\t families whose\t forefathers
\nbecame Christians and who, though they profess the Christian
\nreligion, nonetheless  observe the  practice of Caste. There
\nare Christian  Reddies, Christian  Kammas, Ceristian Nadars,
\nChristian Adi-Andhras, Christian Adi Dravidas and so on. The
\npractice of  their caste  is  so  rigorous  that  there\t are
\nintermarriages with  Hindus of\tthe same  caste but not with
\nChristians of  another\tcaste.\tNow,  if  such\ta  Christian
\nbecomes a  Hindu, surely  he will  revert  to  his  original
\ncaste, if  he had  lost it at all. In fact this process goes
\non continuously\t in India  and generation by generation lost
\nsheep appear  to return to the casts-fold and are once again
\nassimilated in that fold. This appears to be particularly so
\nin the\tcase of members of the Scheduled Castes, who embrace
\nother religions in their quest for liberation, but return to
\ntheir old  religion on\tfinding that their disabilities have
\nclung to  them with great tenacity. We do not think that any
\ndifferent principle  will apply to the case of conversion to
\nHinduism  of  a\t person\t whose\tfore-fathers  had  abandoned
\nHinduism and  embraced another\treligion from  the principle
\napplicable to  the case\t of reconversion  to Hinduism  of  a
\nperson who  himself  had  abandoned  Hinduism  and  embraced
\nanother religion.\n<\/p>\n
     Now, what are the facts of the present case ? The birth
\nextract of  the first  respondent, Devarajan  shows that his
\nparents as  Hindu Adi  Dravidas. Through out his educational
\ncareer, he  was treated\t as a Hindu student belonging to the
\nScheduled Castes and was
\n982<\/span>
\nawarded scholarships  on  that\tbasis.\tThe  school  records
\nrelating to  his  children  also  show\tthem  as  Hindu\t Adi
\nDravidas. On  one occasion  in the  admission register\tof a
\nschool, he  was wrongly\t shown as Adi Dravida Christian, but
\nit was\tcorrected as  Adi Dravida as far back as in 1948. He
\nnever attended\ta  church.  On\tthe  other  hand,  there  is
\nacceptable evidence  to show that he was offering worship to
\nHindu deities  in Hindu\t temples and  that his\tmarriage was
\nperformed according to Hindu custom and rites. Our attention
\nwas however,  drawn to\tthe finding of the Tribunal that the
\nsisters of  the first  respondent professed  Christianity as
\nrevealed by  their  service  registers.\t Our  attention\t was
\nfurther invited\t to certain  evidence  indicating  that\t the
\nparents of  the first  respondent had  become Christians and
\nthat the  first respondent himself had been baptised when he
\nwas seven  months old.\tEven assuming  that the\t parents and
\nsisters of  the first  respondent had  become Christians and
\nthat the  first respondent himself had been baptised when he
\nwas seven  months old,\twe see\tno difficulty in holding, on
\nthe evidence in the case, that the first respondent had long
\nsince reverted\tto Hinduism  and to  the Adi  Dravida caste.
\nThere is  not a scrap of acceptable evidence to show that he
\never professed\tChristianity after  he came  of age.  On the
\nother hand,  every bit\tof evidence  in the  case shows that
\nfrom his childhood, he was always practising Hindism and was
\ntreated by  everyone concerned\tas an  Adi Dravidh. There is
\nthen the  outstanding circumstance  that the  voters of\t the
\nRasipuram  Parliamentary   Constituency\t reserved   for\t the
\nScheduled Castes  accepted his\tcandidature for the reserved
\nseat and  elected him  to the  Lok Sabha  twice. We  have no
\ndoubt whatsoever  that at all relevant times, he was a Hindu
\nAdi Dravida  and professed  no religion other than Hinduism.
\nThe case  was rightly  decided by  the Election Tribunal and
\nthe appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n983<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 411, 1984 SCR (1) 973 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: S. ANBALAGAN Vs. RESPONDENT: B. DEVARAJAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/12\/1983 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) […]<\/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-199097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 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\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-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=\"1983-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-25T03:50:46+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T03:50:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983\"},\"wordCount\":3053,\"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\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983\",\"name\":\"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T03:50:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 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\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-25T03:50:46+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983","datePublished":"1983-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T03:50:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983"},"wordCount":3053,"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\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983","name":"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T03:50:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-anbalagan-vs-b-devarajan-ors-on-5-december-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/199097","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=199097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}