Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of the District Level Vigilance Committee holding that the community certificate held by a man was not genuine and that he did not belong to the Adi Dravidar Community, a Scheduled Caste community.

The court noted that the reasoning given by the committee did not have any relevance and was unsupported by any evaluation by the Anthropologist.

“While, whether the petitioner follows the Hindu gods or Christianity, will be relevant, the reasoning that the petitioner and his family members are very fair in colour, they are tall and having good physique and speak Tamil and English and have curly hair, may not have any relevance. The manner, in which the said reasons are mentioned in the impugned order, is also not in the context of any evaluation by any Anthropologist in this regard,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by M Ravikumar. It was submitted that Ravikumar's father originally belonged to the Hindu Adi Dravidar community and converted himself to Christianity. During this time, Ravikumar was born. Later, Ravikumar and his father reconverted to Hinduism. It was submitted that the parties had gone to Arya Samaj Centre, where the re-conversion ceremonies were done.

After reconversion, Ravikumar obtained a community certificate and was working as Assistant Commissioner in Chennai General Commissionerate. However, just before his superannuation in May 2026, the authorities had started verifying the genuineness of his community certificate. The Commissioner later rendered a finding that the certificate was not genuine.

Ravikumar argued that his family was practicing Hinduism. He submitted that both his and his daughter's marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. He argued that the certificate was held as not genuine merely considering the looks, fair colour, height, etc., which cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

The authorities, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner and his family were claiming to profess Hinduism only for getting employment, reservation, etc., but were professing Christianity. It was pointed out that the petitioner's father was buried in a Christian cemetery. It was also argued that though the petitioner claimed to have converted back to Hinduism, the community people had not accepted the same. Thus, the authorities argued that the case was not one of genuine re-conversion.

The court noted that the findings rendered by the Committee were not clear and categorical. The court noted that the Commission had stated that in the 1994 ration card, the petitioner's daughter's name was in Christian, however, as per the petitioner, he got married in 1994 only, and the daughter was born in 1998. The court thus remarked that the finding of the Committee was unsustainable. The court also noted that though it was claimed that community people had not accepted the petitioner, there was no evidence to support the same.

The court was thus inclined to set aside the order of the committee and directed the petitioner to be given an opportunity of personal hearing. The court also directed the petitioner to appear before the authorities within 4 weeks and submit all documents, including the photographs and other materials, to prove that he was following Hinduism. The court also directed the committee to pass orders within 8 weeks after enquiry

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Manikanda Prabhu J

Counsel for Respondent: Mrs. Inthu Karunakaran, Special Government Pleader, Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy, Central Government Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: M Ravikumar v District Level Vigilance Committee and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454

Case No: WP No 32793 of 2026