2004 (1) TMI 722 - SC - Indian Laws

Tribal Status Post-Conversion: Court Emphasizes Customs and Social Acceptance

State of Kerala and Ors Versus Chandramohanan

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and remitted the case for further proceedings at the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The Court emphasized ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the victim, being a member of a Scheduled Tribe, lost her status upon her family's conversion to Christianity.2. The applicability of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in light of the victim's religious conversion.3. The interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India concerning tribal status.4. The impact of customary laws and tribal traits on the status of a converted individual.Detailed Analysis:1. Status of Scheduled Tribe Membership Post-Conversion:The central issue was whether the victim, whose family converted to Christianity, retained her Scheduled Tribe status. The High Court had quashed charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, reasoning that the victim ceased to be a Scheduled Tribe member due to her parents' conversion. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that tribal membership is a factual question. A person may remain a tribe member if they continue following tribal customs and traits despite religious conversion. This principle was supported by precedents, including *Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar* and *Punit Raj v. Dinesh Chaudhary*, which emphasized the persistence of tribal traits and customs across generations.2. Applicability of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act:The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act could be sustained despite the victim's family's conversion. The Court noted that the Act's protection extends to individuals suffering from social disabilities and following the customs of their original tribe. The conversion alone does not automatically negate tribal membership. This interpretation aligns with the Court's stance in *C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal*, which recognized that conversion does not necessarily lead to loss of caste or tribal status if the community continues to accept the individual.3. Interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution:Articles 341 and 342 empower the President to notify Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The Court reiterated that these provisions aim to protect economically and educationally backward groups. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, is exhaustive, and the President's notification is crucial in determining tribal status. The Court emphasized that the definition of a tribe includes common dialect, culture, and social organization, which are not necessarily altered by religious conversion.4. Customary Laws and Tribal Traits:The Court delved into the role of customary laws in defining tribal membership. Customary laws govern various aspects of tribal life, including marriage, inheritance, and worship. The Court cited *Oraon Religion & Customs* and *Tribal Life of North-Eastern India* to illustrate that different tribes have distinct customs and deities. Even after conversion, individuals may retain tribal customs in areas like inheritance and succession. The Court concluded that the victim's family's conversion to Christianity two centuries ago did not automatically strip them of their tribal status. The factual determination of whether they continued to follow tribal customs must be made during the trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, remitting the case to the Sessions Court, Palakkad, for further proceedings. The Court underscored that the determination of tribal status post-conversion is a factual question, dependent on continued adherence to tribal customs and social acceptance. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was directed to proceed in accordance with law, emphasizing that conversion does not inherently negate tribal membership.