Caste System Alien To Christianity, Protection Of SC&ST Act Cannot Be Extended To Converts: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Quashing charges filed by a complainant who had converted to Christianity and had invoked the SC & ST Act, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N. further held,

“The SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a protective legislation introduced for preventing atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has misused the Protective Legislation though he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent had voluntarily converted to Christianity and was admittedly working as a Pastor in a Church for the last 10 years as on the date of incident. Thus, the 2nd respondent cannot be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Protective Legislation.”

While the complainant had contended that despite conversion, he still possessed the Scheduled Caste Certificate, the Court held that “mere non-cancellation of the caste certificate by the authority to a person who has converted into Christianity cannot instill the protection granted under the Protective Legislation. The 2nd respondent has ceased to be a Member of the Scheduled Caste Community, the day he had converted into Christianity.”

Facts:

The ruling stemmed from a Criminal Petition where the petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (SC&ST Act) and Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It was stated in the initial complaint filed by Respondent 2 (complainant), who was a Pastor conducting Sunday Prayers in Pittalavanipalem Village, that he was subjected to multiple assaults from the petitioner and had received repeated life threats for himself and his family and was also abused in the name of caste. In lieu of this, he had registered a case against the petitioner. The investigation was complete and the charge sheet was also filed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court for quashing of charges against him.

It was the case of the petitioner that the registration of the FIR under the SC&ST Act was bad in law as the complainant had converted to Christianity and was working as a Pastor and thus, he could not claim to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner reasoned that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, categorically made it clear that no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

On the contrary, the respondents argued that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet was filed alongwith the witness statements of as many as 10 witnesses. With respect to the application of the SC&ST Act, it was argued that Respondent 2 cannot be denied protection under the SC&ST Act as the Tahsildar of Pittalavanipalem Mandal (witness 12) had confirmed that the respondent 2 was a member of the SC community belonging to Hindu-Madiga by Caste. It was also submitted that the respondent possessed a caste certificate which was issued by Tahsildar of Pittalavanipalem Mandal (witness 12).

Courts Findings:

The fundamental question before the Court was whether a Pastor can claim to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community after his conversion to Christianity. In relation to this, the Court held that Section 3 of the SC&ST Act made it crystal clear that only a person belonging to the SC & ST community can invoke the provisions of the Act. Thus, the respondent, who had converted to Christianity and was actively professing the same for roughly 10 years, was not entitled to protection of the SC&ST Act.

With respect to the argument that Respondent 2 continues to hold a Scheduled Caste Certificate, the Court held that the same was a matter to be dealt under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, by the appropriate authority under the Act. However, the Court added that mere non-cancellation of caste certificate does not entitle Respondent 2 to be protected by the SC & ST Act after conversion.

Regarding the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the Court noted,

“In so far as the allegations of commission of offences under Sections 341, 506 and 323 read with 34 of IPC is concerned except for the statement of LW.1 there is no other corroborating statement of any of the witnesses. On the contrary LW.2 the wife of LW.1 would state that she came to know about the alleged altercation and that by the time she went there LW.1 had already started in a car with one Pothurlanka Srinivasa Rao-LW.4 in the car belonging to LW.3 - Addepalli Anil Kumar. She also stated that Anil Kumar and Pothurlanka Srinivasa Rao had dropped LW.1 at her house. Both LWs.3 and 4 state that there was an altercation and that about 30 people were questioning LW.1 about his activities in the village and that LWs.3 and 4 intervened and pacified the situation and thereafter dropped LW.1. LWs.3 and 4 state that about 30 people have assembled and questioned LW.1; however, LW.5 to LW.9 do not state so in their statement.”

Allowing the Criminal Petition and quashing the charges against the petitioner, the Court held,

“On these grounds, this Court is of the considered view that the registration of crime under the provisions of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is illegal. It is also held that filing of charge sheet inspite of the categorical statements of the listed witnesses specifically stating that the 2nd respondent is working as a Pastor for the last 10 years, the police could not have laid a charge sheet charging the petitioners for alleged offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Similarly, except for the listed witness Nos.1 and 3 no other witness speak about the altercation involving 30 people. Even the charge sheet does not state that 30 people had participated in the altercation.”

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7114 OF 2022

Case Title: Akkala Rami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Date: 30.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order