http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 2 of 18
caste and was accepted as such by the members of thatcommunity because her marriage with Jai Prakash Shalwar wasperformed according to Hindu rites of Aryasamaj sect and wasattended by a number of members of her caste and duepublicity was given to the marriage.Dismissing the appeal,^HELD: It cannot be said that at the time when therespondent filed her nomination papers, she was not a memberof the Katia caste. [199 G]A caste to which a Hindu belongs is essentiallydetermined by birth and if a Hindu is converted toChristianity or any other religion which does not recognise177caste, the conversion amounts to a loss of the said caste.In considering whether on conversion the loss of the casteis absolute, irrevocable so as not to revive under anycircumstance the guiding principles are: (a) Where a personbelonging to a scheduled caste in converted to Christianityor Islam, the same involves loss of the caste unless thereligion to which he is converted is liberal enough topermit the convertee to retain his caste or the family lawsby which he was originally governed. There are a number ofcases where members belonging to a particular caste havingbeen converted to Christianity or even to Islam retainedtheir caste or family laws and despite the new order theywere permitted to be governed by their old laws. But thiscan happen only if the new religion is liberal and tolerantenough to permit such a course of action, and (b) In allother cases, conversion to Christianity or Islam or anyother religion which does not accept the caste system andinsists on relinquishing the caste, there is a loss of casteon conversion. [190C-F; 191 B]The norms and conditions under which a caste couldrevive on reconversion to the old religion as laid down bythe authorities of the High Courts and this Court are: (1)where the convertee exhibits by his actions and behaviourhis clear intention of abjuring the new religion on his ownvolition without any persuasion and is not motivated by anybenefit or gain, (2) where the community of the old order towhich the convertee originally belonged is gracious enoughto admit him to the original caste either expressly or bynecessary intendment, and (3) Rules of the new Order inpermitting the convertee to join the new caste. Unless theaforesaid conditions are fulfilled the loss of caste onconversion is complete and cannot he revived. But havingregard to the present set-up and the circumstancesprevailing in our modern society, it will be difficult toinsist on the second condition, viz., the insistence on themembers of the community of the caste to admit the converteeon reconversion to the original caste because such a courseof action may lead to dangerous consequence and ill-concieved exploitation. [191 C-G]G.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal & Ors.,  3 S.C.R.82; Sacred Books of the East (Vol. VIII) by F. Max Muller;Charlotte Abraham and Daniel Vincent Abraham v. FrancisAbraham, 9 M.I.A. 199: Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v.Moreshwar Parashram & Ors.,  S.C.R. 817; S. Anbalalagnv. B. Devarajan & Ors.,  I.S.C.R. Goona DurgaprasadaRao & Anr. v. Goona Sudarsanaswami & Ors., ILR 1940 Madras653; G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran, AIR 1952 Madras 474;Dippala Suri Dora v. V.V. Giri AIR 1958 A.P. 724; WilsonReade v. C.S. Booth & Ors. AIR 1958 Assam 128; and B.Shyamsunder v. Shakar Deo Vedalankar & Ors., AIR 1960Mysore, 27 referred to.