Pathak, J. - (1.) This and the connected writ 'petitions raise the important question whether the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is constitutionally invalid on the ground that only Hindu or Sikh members of the castes enumerated in the Schedule to that Order are deemed to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petitioner Soosai (in Writ Petition No. 95% of 1983) states that he belongs to the Adi-Dravida Community and is a convert to Christianity. He is a cobbler by profession and works on the roadside at one of the crossroads in Madras. In May, 1982, the officers of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board surveyed the sites on which cobblers were working, including the place occupied by the petitioner, and subsequently on July 27, 1982 several cobblers were allotted bunks free of cost by the Regional Deputy Director, Khadi and Village Industries Board. The petitioner was not. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that the allotment of bunks. free of cost was consequent to a proposal under the Special Central Assistance Scheme of the Government of India for the welfare of Scheduled Castes. The funds for the purpose were provided from the Special Central Assistance of the Government of India set up for giving effect to schemes exclusively intended for Scheduled Castes under G. 0. Ms. No. 580 Social Welfare Department dated February 13, 1982. It is pointed out that this Order specifically states that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and converted to Christianity are not eligible for assistance under the scheme. The petitioner points out that the said Order has been made in consonance with the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which specifically declares that no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner assails the validity of that Order on the ground that it violates Arts. 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.
(3.) The essence of the petitioner's case is that he was a Hindu belonging to the Adi-Dravida caste and on conversion to Christianity he continues as a member of that caste. The Adi-Dravida caste is one of the castes enumerated in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The petitioner alleges that he has been denied the benefit of welfare assistance intended for Scheduled Castes on the ground only that he professes the Christian religion, and he contends that inasmuch as such discrimination has been effected pursuant to the provision contained in paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, that provision is constitutionally invalid. The petitioner invokes Art. 14, which is the central provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws, and Cl. (1) of Art. 15 which prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on the ground only, among others, of religion. It is pointed out that when Cl. (4) of Art. 15 permits the State, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Cl. (1) of Art. 15, to make special provision for the. advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it envisages such special provision for the advancement of all members of such backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. If any discrimination is exercised between the members of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of religion only so as to promote the welfare of one group of members and deny it to the others the denial will be invalid. Reference' has also been made to Art. 25 on the ground that a Christian convert will be tempted to reconvert to Hinduism or Sikhism in order to benefit from the constitutional provisions relating to Scheduled Castes and therefore paragraph 3 in its operation denies him freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate his religion.;