Scheduled Caste status after conversion depends on reconversion and community acceptance; election challenge failed on the evidence.

A person claiming Scheduled Caste status after conversion must prove reconversion to Hinduism and acceptance by the community; the burden remained on the election petitioner to show that the appellant still professed Christianity. SC accepted the appellant's evidence of conversion, reaffirmation of Hindu faith, community conduct, Hindu custom, and surrounding circumstances, and held that the community certificate and supporting evidence could not be rejected on conjecture. Birth records, voters' list entries, and telephone application details were found insufficient to displace that case. The appellant was therefore entitled to contest the reserved constituency as a Scheduled Caste candidate, and the election challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was qualified to contest the reserved constituency as a member of a Scheduled Caste notwithstanding the allegation that she continued to profess Christianity.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that a person claiming Scheduled Caste status after conversion must establish both reconversion to Hinduism and acceptance by the community. The Court held that the burden of proof remained on the election petitioner to establish that the appellant still professed Christianity. The appellant's evidence of conversion and reaffirmation of Hindu faith, supported by community conduct, Hindu custom, and surrounding circumstances, was found credible. The Court also held that the community certificate and the evidence supporting it could not be discarded on conjecture, and that birth records, voters' list entries, and telephone application details were insufficient to displace the appellant's case.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to contest from the reserved constituency as a Scheduled Caste candidate, and the challenge to her election failed.

---