Holding

A person whose parents had converted to Christianity before his birth cannot claim Scheduled Caste status, and civil courts lack jurisdiction to declare such status; only the President’s notification is decisive.

Summary

The petitioner, born in 1941 to parents who had converted to Christianity before his birth, later reconverted to Hinduism at age 14 and claimed to be an Adi‑Dravida Scheduled Caste to obtain SC benefits in his employment with the Food Corporation of India. He filed a suit for a declaration of Scheduled Caste status; the trial court granted relief but the Madras High Court reversed the decision. The Supreme Court examined Articles 341(1)&(2) and 366(24) of the Constitution, the President’s notification under the Scheduled Castes Order and the 1976 Amendment Act, and reiterated that only the President (in consultation with the Governor) may specify castes as Scheduled Castes. Because the petitioner’s parents were Christians at the time of his birth, the caste ceased to exist for him, and later reconversion does not revive the status. The Court held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to declare a person a Scheduled Caste and dismissed the petition as non‑maintainable.

Issues considered

Whether a person born to parents who had converted to Christianity before his birth can claim Scheduled Caste status after reconverting to Hinduism.
Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to determine Scheduled Caste status or whether only the President’s notification under Article 341 is conclusive.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Sec 9
Constitution of Indias. Art 341(1), s. Art 341(2), s. Art 366(24)

Subjects

Scheduled CasteConversionCaste statusConstitutional lawArticle 341Article 366Presidential notificationCivil court jurisdictionFood Corporation of IndiaSC benefits

Judgment

S. SWVIGARADOSS A
v.
ZONAL MANAGER, F.C.I.

JANUARY 25, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.] B

Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950 :

Articles 341(1) & (2), 366(2)-Schedu/e I to the Co11stitu-
tio11-Scheduled castes-Courts have 110 power except to give effect to the
11otificatio11 issued by tlze President--Cowts would look into tlze Notification
c
for a lilnited purpose--Person boni to cluistian parents, who were conve1ted
prior to lzis bi1th-No longer remain a Scheduled caste-Hence their son
cannot claim to b.e a Scheduled caste-Suit for declaration file~ln the light
of the constitutional scheme civil courl has no jurisdiction to entertain the
suit-S. 9 C.P. C. 0
Service Law:

Scheduled caste-Benefits and privileges-Person born to parel!ls after
their conversion to cluistianity-No longer reniains Scheduled caste--Cannot
enjoy the benefits a11d privileges extended to Scheduled Castes. E
B. Basavalingappa v. D. Municlzim1appa, [1965] 1 SCR 316; Blzaiya/al
v. Harikislzan Singh & Ors., [1965] 2 SCR 874; Srish Kumar Choudhwy v.
Stat~ of Tnpura & Ors., [1990] Supp. SCC 220 and Kumari Madhwi Patel
& Ors. v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC
241, relied on. F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 27571 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.95 of the Madras High
Court in Second Appeal No. 270 of 1984. G
SA. Syed for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The petitioner's parents initially belong'd to Adi-Dravida by caste H
995
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A hailing from Kattalai village in Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu. Admitted-
ly, before his birth, they had converted into Christian religion. He was born
on May 7, 1941. He joined the service of the Food Corporation of India
on March 7, 1968 as Assistant Grade-I. Subsequently, he had married on
February 14, 1969 according to Christian rites in a Church. On these facts,
B notice was given to the petitioner to show cause how the petitioner would
be entitled to benefits and privileges extended to the Scheduled Caste
candidates in future. Challenging it, he filed a suit. His case is that he was
baptised when he was a minor. After he became major, he is continuing as
a Adi-Dravida. The trial Court though decreed the suit, on appeal it was
reversed and in S.A. No. 270/84, the High Court confirmed the same. Thus
C this Special Leave Petition.

It is contended for the petitioner that though he was born of Chris-
tian parents, but with their consent, he got converted to Hindu at the age
of 14 and on such conversion, he became Adi-Dravida and consequently
D entitled to the status of 'Scheduled Caste'. Therefore, he is entitled to the
status as a Scheduled Caste. Article 366 (24) of the Constitution of India
defined Scheduled Caste as under :

"Art. 366 (24) Scheduled Caste means such castes, races or tribes
or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are
E deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes
of this Constitution."

Article 341(1) empowers the President oflndia to specify, in consult-
ation with the Governor of the State, with respect to the State or Union
F Territory, or for a part of the State, District or region by public notification
specify castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be
'Scheduled Castes' in relation to the State or Union Territory as the case·
may be. Sub-Article (2) empowers the Parliament by law to include in or
G exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the notification
issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within
anY caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under
1-
the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. In other
words, the Constitutional mandate is that it is the President who is em-
powered, in consultation with the Governor of the State, to specify by a
H public notification the caste, race or tribe or parts or groups within castes,
S. SWVIGARADOSS v. F.C.I. 997

races or tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed A
to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory.

In B. Busavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [1965] 1 SCR 316, the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 specified Bhovi caste as a
Scheduled Caste. The respondent, a Yoddar by caste contested election as
a Scheduled Caste Bhovi. A Constitution Bench examined the scheme of B
Article 341 and upheld the contention of the appellant that in view of the
stringent provisions of the Constitution with respect to a notification issued
under clause (1), it is not open to anyone to include any caste as coming
within the notification on the basis of evidence - oral or documentary - if
the caste in question does not find specific mention in the terms of the C
notification, it was not open, therefore, to give evidence _!-hat a particular
caste was a .Scheduled Caste not mentioned in the 1950 Order.

In Bhaiya/a/ v. Harikishan Singh & Ors., [1965] 2 SCR 874, wherein
the same question had arisen, another Constitution Bench had held that in
' ., specifying castes, races or tribes under Article 341 (1) of the Constitution,
the President has been expressly authorised to limit the notification to parts
D

of or groups within the caste, race or tribe to be Scheduled Caste by
including them in the Order. That would be applicable in relation to the
entire State or in relation to parts of the State where the President .is
satisfied that on examination of the social and educational backwardness E
of the race, caste or tribe justifies such specification.

In S1ish Kumar Choudhury v. State of T!ipura & Ors., (1990] Snpp.
SCC 220, a three-Judge Bench was called upon to consider whether Laskar
community in State of Tripura is a Scheduled Tribe. After examining the
scheme of the Constitution it was held that though evidence may be F
admissible to verify the entries in the Presidential Order to find a
caste/tribe included in a particular tribe or caste, tribal communities, the
admissibility of the evidence is confined within the limitations enacted in
the order. It was not open to the Court to make any addition or subtraction
from the Presidential Order.
G
In Kumari Madhuri Patel & Ors. v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal
Development & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241, a two-Judge Bench further con-
sidered whether Kolis, a Backward Class in Maharashtra would be
declared as Mahadeo Kali, a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. It was held
that after the amendment under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes H
998 SUPREME COURT REP OR TS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Order (Amendment Act), 1976, no substraction or addition to it by way of
declaration of castes, tribes or sub-caste, parts of or groups of tribes or
tribal community is permissible and that the Presidential notification, sub-
ject to the amendment by Parliament, is conclusive.

The Courts, therefore, have no power except to give effect to the
B notification issued by the President. It is settled law that the Court would
look into the public notification under Section 341(1) or 342(1) for a
limited purpose. The notification issued by the President and the Act of
the Parliament under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order
(Amendment) Act, 1976 and the Schedules appended thereto can be
C looked into for the purpose to find whether the castes, races or tribes are
parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes shall be Scheduled Castes
for the purposes of the Constitution. Under the Amendment Act, 1976,
again the Parliament has included or excluded from schedules appended
to the Constitution which are now conclusive. Schedule I relates to
Scheduled Castes and Schedule II relates to Scheduled Tribes. Christian
D is not a Scheduled Caste under the notification issued by the President. In
view of the admitted position that the petitioner was born of Christian
parents and his parents also were converted prior to his birth and no longer
remained to be Adi Dravida, a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of Tirunel-
veli District in Tamil Nadu as notified by the President, petitioner cannot
E claim to be a Scheduled Caste. In the light of the constitutional scheme
civil court has no jurisdiction under Section 9 of CPC to entertain the suit.
The suit, therefore, is not maintainable. The High Court, therefore, was
right in dismissing the suit as not maintainable and also not giving any
declaration sought for. ·

F The SLP is accordingly dismissed.

G.N. Petition dismissed.