The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals born into Christianity cannot claim caste status under Hinduism by invoking the “doctrine of caste eclipse” after reconverting. The court emphasized that caste, a concept rooted in Hinduism, is not recognized in Christianity, making the doctrine inapplicable in such cases.
A bench led by Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan explained the principle of caste eclipse, which applies when individuals from caste-based religions convert to caste-less faiths. In such scenarios, their original caste is considered dormant or “eclipsed.” If they reconvert during their lifetime, the caste may be restored—but this rule does not extend to those born as Christians.
The case arose from an appeal against a decision denying a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate to a woman applying for a government job in Puducherry. Born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, the appellant argued she had reconverted to Hinduism, thereby restoring her caste. She cited legal precedents to support her claim that caste remains inherent even after religious conversion and can resurface upon returning to the original faith.
However, the court found her evidence insufficient. It noted the absence of a public declaration or recognized conversion ceremony and determined that the appellant still practiced Christianity. The court rejected her argument that her caste had merely been “eclipsed” during her Christian faith, pointing out that such reasoning applies only to those born into Hinduism.
Quoting past rulings, the judgment clarified that caste revival through reconversion is only valid when the individual’s community accepts their return. The court also reiterated that Christianity, globally and in India, does not recognize caste distinctions.
In this case, the bench concluded that the doctrine of caste eclipse could not be invoked. The court stated that the appellant’s continued identification with Christianity, combined with a lack of credible evidence for reconversion, rendered her claim unsustainable.
This ruling underscores the court’s firm stance that caste-based benefits cannot be manipulated through religious conversion or reconversion without substantive proof and community acceptance.
