- Madras High Court rejected appearance as religious identity proof.
- Court found flaws in Ravikumar’s community certificate inquiry.
- Committee relied on appearance, language without anthropological basis.
The Madras High Court has held that a person’s fair complexion, tall stature, physique and ability to speak Tamil and English cannot, by themselves, establish that the person follows Christianity. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy set aside a District Level Vigilance Committee order that had questioned the validity of a man’s community certificate, observing that the committee’s reasoning was not supported by any anthropological assessment.
Court Rejects Reasoning
The case concerned M Ravikumar, whose father had originally belonged to the Hindu Adi Dravidar community before converting to Christianity. Ravikumar was born during this period and later claimed that he and his father had reconverted to Hinduism through ceremonies conducted at an Arya Samaj centre.
Ravikumar subsequently obtained a community certificate and worked as an Assistant Commissioner in the Chennai General Commissionerate. Authorities began examining the validity of his certificate shortly before his retirement in May 2026, eventually holding that it was not genuine.
The committee had cited several factors, including the family’s appearance, height, physique, language abilities and curly hair, while questioning whether they genuinely followed Hinduism rather than Christianity.
The High Court found that such reasoning had no clear relevance without an appropriate anthropological evaluation. The court also noted that the committee’s findings were not clear or categorical.
Also Read: S Jaishankar, Praveen Sood, Upendra Dwivedi Issued SIR Notices; Election Commission Clarifies
Evidence, Not Appearance
Authorities had argued that Ravikumar and his family were claiming to follow Hinduism to secure employment and reservation benefits, while continuing to practise Christianity. They also pointed to Ravikumar’s father being buried in a Christian cemetery and claimed that the local community had not accepted the alleged reconversion.
The court, however, found gaps in these findings. It noted, for instance, that the committee had referred to Ravikumar’s daughter being recorded as Christian on a 1994 ration card, although Ravikumar said he married in 1994 and his daughter was born only in 1998.
The court therefore set aside the committee’s order and directed that Ravikumar be given a personal hearing. He has been asked to submit documents, photographs and other material supporting his claim of following Hinduism.
The committee has been directed to conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order within eight weeks.
