A person can be accorded Scheduled Caste status on his re-conversion to Hinduism subject to evidence of his acceptance by the community: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a person can be accorded Scheduled Caste (SC) status on his re-conversion to Hinduism if he is accepted by fellow caste men and proves that either he or his forefathers previously belonged to that caste before embracing another religion.

"In our considered opinion, three things that need to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are (i) there must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; "(ii) there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect, according to us, is very significant and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not be possible," a bench of justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda said.

The court's judgment came in an appeal preferred by KP Manu, a Kerala resident, who had challenged the verdict of the Kerala High Court.

Manu, who was born as a Christian as his grandfather had embraced the religion after leaving Hinduism, became Hindu again at the age of 24 and was granted SC certificate of 'Hindu Pulaya' caste to which his ancestors belonged.

However, later on a complaint, a scrutiny committee held that he cannot be treated as a Hindu on the ground that his forefathers were Christians and he himself had married a Christian woman. This finding was affirmed by the High Court as well.

On the basis of the report of the scrutiny committee, the state government took action and directed the employer of Manu to remove him from service and recover a sum of Rs 15 lakh towards the salary paid to him.

However, the apex court set aside the verdict of the High Court. The apex court, in its verdict, said, "in the instant case, the appellant got married to a Christian lady and that has been held against him. It has also been opined that he could not produce any evidence to show that he has been accepted by the community for leading the life of a Hindu.

"As far as the marriage and leading of Hindu life are concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that, in the instant case, it really cannot be allowed to make any difference. The community which is a recognised organisation by the state government, has granted the certificate in categorical terms in favour of the appellant. It is the community which has the final say as far as acceptance is concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion, and takes him within its fold."

The bench further said "therefore, we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the Scheduled Caste. Had the community expelled him, the matter would have been different. The acceptance is in continuum. Ergo, the reasonings ascribed by the scrutiny committee which have been concurred with by the High Court are wholly unsustainable."

"The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating to seniority and his caste and shall also be paid back wages upto 75 per cent within eight weeks from today," said the Bench allowing Manu’s appeal.

Teesta Setalvad's bail plea posted before new bench after judge's recusal: Supreme Court Registry

In new twist to the controversy over a new Bench hearing Teesta Setalvad's anticipatory bail plea, the Supreme Court registry has said that Teesta's bail plea was posted befrore another bench on the recusal of a judge in the previous bench.

Referring to news reports that Chief Justice of India H L Dattu had transferred Setalvad’s plea to a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra despite the fact that neither of the judges of the previous bench, justices S J Mukhopadhya and N V Ramana, had recused, an apex court registrar said it has “no basis or substance”.

The Registry however, declined to identify which of the two judges - Justice Mukhopadhyay or Justice Ramana -had sought recusal.

“Whatever has been done has been done at the direct recusal of one of the Hon’ble judges of the previous bench. Assigning a case to a bench is in the administrative domain of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,” M K Hanjura, Registrar of the Supreme Court said.

“Whatever has been reported has no basis and no substance,” he said, adding that media should not report “incorrect facts”.

The bench of justices S J Mukhopadhyaya and N V Ramana, on February 13, had extended interim protection by six more days against arrest to Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds for a museum at Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society that was devastated in the 2002 riots. It had posed some tough queries to the couple.

However, the matter was later transferred to a new bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Adarsh Kumar Goel which on February 19 restrained Gujarat police from arresting them and later reserved its verdict of their plea

B.S Yeddyurappa cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of lack of sanction as defrauding the exchequer is not part of a public servant's official duties, submits the CBI before the Supreme Court

Opposing former Karnataka chief minister B.S Yeddyurappa’s plea for quashing of the charge-sheet against him and his two sons, the CBI told the Supreme Court on Friday that it had evidence to back its charges accusing the former CM of unilaterally de-notifying a piece of land marked for acquisition by Bangalore Development Authority for Arkavati Layout, and then allowing his sons and son-in-law to sell it at an exorbitant price to South West Mining Ltd.

 

Yeddyurappa has sought quashing of the cases registered by the CBI against him on the ground of lack of sanction from the Governor for prosecuting him.

 

Rebutting this contention of Mr. Yeddyurappa, the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted before the Supreme Court that former Karnataka chief minister B.S Yeddyurappa cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of lack of sanction as defrauding the exchequer was not part of a public servant's official duties. 

 

File picture : former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor's sanction is required to prosecute any public servant, including chief minister or other ministers. Yeddyurappa is accused of granting land at throwaway prices and hastening environmental clearances to certain companies in return for funds worth crores of rupees being put into some family run trusts. He is also accused of imposing a ban on mining imports into the state to benefit some companies.

These actions are alleged to have cost the state exchequer a loss of an estimated Rs 876.90 crore. CBI filed a chargesheet in May 2012 under court directions against Yeddyurappa, his sons BY Vijayendra and BY Raghavendra and son-in-law RN Sohan Kumar. 

Among those who figure in the chargesheet are Prerna Educational and Social Trust, JSW Steel, South West Mining Ltd and certain other local companies which paid unspecified amounts into the trusts. 

Yeddyurappa later moved the Apex court seeking quashing of the charge sheet in the case on  the ground that the governor's sanction was not obtained, as needed under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute a public servant. CBI has stoutly opposed his contentions in its affidavit filed on Friday. 

The CBI also said in its affidavit filed before the Court that it had documentary evidence to prove that the Yeddyurappa family-run Prerana Educational and Social Trust had received Rs 10 crore in donation from JSW Steel Ltd through various firms as a quid pro quo for favours shown by the then CM to JSW. "It is a matter which needs to be taken to its logical end," the agency said.

 

The CBI has also claimed that Yedduurappa had misused his official position as urban development minister to de-notify government land to enable his family members to purchase plots and later sell them at concessional rates in return for quid pro quo investments in the trusts. "Yeddyurappa was directly involved in the de-notification of the land, which was purchased by his kin by resorting to forgery and other illegal means and got undue benefits. Yeddyurappa himself took the decision to de-notify the land, bypassing the De-notification Committee which alone was competent to consider requests for de-notification of land marked for acquisition," the investigation agency said. 

 Yeddyurappa has been charged with criminal conspiracy and of committing offences punishable under Sections 13(1(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.