<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (9) TMI 946 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156568</link>
    <description>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&#039;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&#039; 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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 946 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156568</link>
      <description>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&#039;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&#039; 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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>