A writ petition has now been filed in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the formation of a three-member Commission of Inquiry to examine whether it would be possible to accord Scheduled Caste status to Dalits who have over the years converted to Christianity or Islam.
The writ petition was filed on Friday by Pratap Baburao Pandit, Secretary of Pragat Padhividhar Sanghatna, a social and educational trust registered in Pune, who said he was a Christian of Scheduled Caste origin, belonging to the Mahar community.
Praying that the functioning of the Commission be stayed and the notification forming it be quashed, the writ petition argued that the Union government has over the years formed multiple Commissions, dating back to the first Backward Classes Commission (1955), on this subject that have already pronounced the need for according to SC status to Dalits who have converted to Islam or Christianity.
Given these circumstances, the petition said, “The appointment of a new Commission is with wrong intention of delaying the justice on the petition pending in this honorable court.”
“The formation of this Commission is not based on a real objective or real material and it is based merely on some vague allegations or hearsay evidence or to make fishing enquiry,” it added.
It argued that because all existing Commission reports and studies conducted so far supported the petitioners’ position that SC status should be accorded to Dalit Christians and Muslims, “the appointment of the new commission can be with an intention of getting biased report” that favours the position taken by the Union government.
In the cases pending with the Supreme Court since 2004 with respect to this issue, the Narendra Modi-led government has consistently maintained that it is not in favour of SC status to Dalits Christians and Muslims. In its affidavit filed in 2019, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had said that Dalit Christians and Muslims cannot be compared to Buddhist converts because the motivation for conversion was different.
It maintained the same position in its 2022 affidavit, in addition to which, it alluded to the “foreign” origins of Christianity and Islam to justify excluding these religions from the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, going on to inexplicably claim that the differentiation in this case was between “Indian citizens and foreigners” when no foreign citizens are involved in the case.
Mr. Pandit’s petition went on to say that the Supreme Court had while hearing the case on this subject, in 2011, already framed three key Constitutional questions to be examined in the matter. Given this, the petitioner argued that the Commission, as formed by the government in October this year, does not have the jurisdiction to examine these constitutional questions and that the top court had the sole domain to do so.
The questions as framed by the court were as follows: whether paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which denies SC status to anyone practicing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism, is unconstitutional and void, being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25; whether an SC person professing another religion can be deprived of the benefits of Constitution (SC) Order; and whether the exclusion of Christians and Muslims from the list of religions in the Order is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights.
Citing these grounds, the petitioner also sought that the Supreme Court fix the date for final hearing in the pending cases as early as possible and consider the voluminous materials already on record.
The petitioner added that Christians of Scheduled Caste origin have been waiting for the top court to decide the matter for over 18 years now and that getting speedy justice was part of their fundamental rights.
In the last hearing in this case on December 7, the Union government had informed the top court of the formation of the Commission of Inquiry and that it has been asked to submit a report in two years. Following this, the Supreme Court bench had noted, “The first aspect which would have to be dealt with is whether this Court should stay its hands till the report of this Commission comes or whether it should proceed on the basis of the material on record.” The case is posted for next hearing in January 2023.
