The court held that the caste system is not recognized in Christianity. The complainant, who has voluntarily converted to Christianity and is working as a pastor, cannot claim protection under the SC/ST Act.
Amravati- In an important decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed Spl.SC.No.36 of 2021 registered in the Special Sessions and SC/ST Court, Guntur against Akkala Rami Reddy, a resident of Kothapalem village of Pittalavanipalem Mandal of Guntur district and other petitioners.
The court said in its order that the complainant (respondent), who has been working as a pastor for the last 10 years, misused the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and filed a false complaint. The court also held that the complainant, who has converted to Christianity, cannot claim protection under the SC/ST Act.
Here is the full case
The dispute pertains to Kothapalem village in Guntur district, where the complainant had been living with his wife Soujanya and two children, Jackson Paul (7 years) and Mahima Paul (5 years) for the past 11 years. The complainant claimed that he serves as a pastor and conducts Sunday prayer meetings at the house of Doma Koti Reddy in the village for the past 10 years, which is attended by 20-30 people. He also said that he conducted the prayers without any disruption to the peaceful atmosphere of the village.
However, on January 26, 2021, the complainant lodged a complaint at the T. Sandole police station, alleging that in December 2020, he received threatening calls from several phone numbers, insulting him on the basis of his caste and threatening to eliminate him and his family. The complaint also stated that on January 3, 2021, while he was conducting a prayer meeting at the house of Doma Koti Reddy, the first accused (Akkala Rami Reddy) called him, slapped and punched him. The complainant said that he forgave the first accused due to his love for Christianity.
Further, the complaint mentioned another incident dated January 24, 2021, in which the complainant claimed that while returning home after the prayer meeting, Akkala Rami Reddy and 25 others stopped him, attacked him and threatened to kill him and his family while insulting him on the basis of his caste. Based on this complaint, the police registered a case under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 341, 506, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The police filed a chargesheet after investigation, which included statements of 10 witnesses and the statement of the medical officer of Bapatla Regional Hospital, who described the injury of the complainant as normal. Based on the chargesheet, the case was registered as Spl.SC.No.36 of 2021 in the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-SC/ST Court, Guntur.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners (Akkala Rami Reddy and others) argued that the FIR registered under the SC/ST Act is bad in law. He said the complainant himself has admitted that he is a pastor and conducts Sunday prayers. The counsel argued that a person converting to Christianity cannot claim to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. He cited the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which clearly states that a person professing any religion other than Hinduism shall not be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste.
The counsel for the petitioners referred to cases like 2016 1 ALD (Cri) 545 (Chinni Appa Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh) and AIR Online 2024 SC 793 (C. Selvarani vs Special Secretary), where it was held that a person converted to Christianity cannot claim protection under the SC/ST Act. He also argued that the complainant vitiated the social fabric by inciting religious and caste sentiments in the village.
The counsel for the complainant argued that the police have filed the chargesheet on the basis of statements of 10 witnesses and medical officer, who confirm the incident. He also said that the Tehsildar of Pittalavanipalem Mandal (witness no. 12) has confirmed the complainant to be of Hindu-Madiga caste, which falls under Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the complainant enjoys the protection of SC/ST Act.
The lawyer cited cases such as 2009 LawSuit (SC) 624 (Kurapati Maria Das vs Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajam) and (2016) 11 SCC 617 (Mohammed Sadiq vs Dabra Singh Guru), where the Supreme Court held that caste is attached to birth and conversion does not change caste. He also argued that the validity of the complainant’s caste certificate is a factual question, which should be decided in the trial court.
What did the High Court say?
Justice Harinath N of the High Court reviewed the arguments of both the parties and the material available on record. The court held that the SC/ST Act applies only to members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The court analysed the complaint and the statements of witnesses, which clearly stated that the complainant has been working as a pastor for the last 10 years and is the treasurer of the fellowship of pastors in Pittalavanipalem mandal. The witnesses also confirmed that the complainant follows Christianity and conducts Sunday prayers.
The court held that the caste system is not recognised in Christianity. The complainant, who has voluntarily converted to Christianity and is working as a pastor, cannot claim protection under the SC/ST Act. The court also said that the complainant’s caste certificate, which has not been cancelled, does not provide him the protection of the SC/ST Act, as he is no longer a member of the Scheduled Caste after converting to Christianity.
With regard to the allegations under Sections 341, 506, and 323 of the IPC, the Court observed that except the statements of the complainant and witness No. 3, no other witness corroborates the presence of 30 people or the attack. Witness No. 9, who was with the complainant, also only stated that some people wanted to talk to the complainant and later she was threatened. The Court held that these allegations cannot be proved even after a full trial.
The Court concluded that the case registered under the SC/ST Act is illegal and the complainant filed a false complaint. The Court said that no purpose would be served by sending the complainant to the trial court and going through the process of trial. Therefore, allowing the criminal petition, Spl.SC.No.36 of 2021 was quashed.
Courtesy : Geetha Sunil Pillai, Hindi News