The Madras High Court recently quashed an order of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Kancheepuram, cancelling the community certificate issued to the president of the Gerugambakkam panchayat as ‘Hindu Adi Dravidar.’
Allowing a writ petition by the panchayat chief challenging the committee’s order of August 8 this year, a Division Bench comprising Justices N. Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice K. Ravichandra Baabu passed the order.
It said that merely because the VAO and RDO had submitted some adverse report, which were not corroborated by any other oral or documentary evidence, the committee was not justified in arriving at the conclusion.
The petitioner, K. Vasikaran said he belonged to Hindu Adi-Dravida community by birth.
He was issued the community certificate by the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur in 1996.
His wedding was as per Christian rites. However, he reconverted to Hinduism along with his wife by undergoing ‘Shuddi Ceremony’ conducted by the Arya Samaj (Central Madras) and a certificate of reconversion was issued by the organisation in June 2011. Reconversion and change of his name and that of his wife were also notified in the official gazette.
He became the panchayat president in the October 2011 elections. An unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition before the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, seeking to declare the petitioner’s election as null and void. The petition was pending. Another unsuccessful candidate filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Collector to consider his representation for verification of Mr. Vasikaran’s community status.
The petitioner also filed writ petitions.
On August 8 this year, without even referring to the petitioner’s representations, the panel passed the order.
The Bench said the vigilance committee, solely relying on the VAO and RDO’s reports, concluded that the petitioner was not living as a Hindu and declared the community certificate not valid.
There was no positive proof that the petitioner’s house was constructed after reconversion.
Pooja room
The presence of a ‘cross symbol’ on the house pillars, which was inscribed prior to reconversion, could not be a conclusive proof, particularly when admittedly, there was a pooja room in the house and pictures of Hindu gods were placed though the absence of pooja articles on a particular date were not available.
The traditional lamp was in the room.
A pooja room will normally be available in Hindu houses. There may not be a separate prayer room in every Christian house.
Not conducting pooja by a Hindu in the pooja room regularly also could not be a conclusive proof to declare that the petitioner was not a Hindu, the Bench said.
