Hindus in minority in Kanyakumari; census does not reflect the ground reality of ‘crypto-Christians: Madras High Court

By – Sonal Priya

The Madras high court on Friday (7 January) located that the demographic profile of Tamil Nadu’s Kanyakumari in terms of faith has visible an inversion and Hindus have become a minority within the district because 1980 despite the fact that the 2011 census shows otherwise. The HC bench of Justice G R Swaminathan made the remark in the order exceeded on a plea through a Catholic priest P George Ponnaiah searching for quashing of hate speech case filed towards him for mocking Hindu religious beliefs at an assembly organized at Arumanai, a village inside the Kanyakumari district, reports Bar And Bench.”The demographic profile of Kanyakumari in terms of faith has visible an inversion. Hindus became a minority in the District for the reason that 1980. Although the 2011 census gives an impression that Hindus are the biggest spiritual institution with their wide variety pegged at 48. Five in step with cent, that might not constitute the floor reality,” the court docket said. The court docket in its order further delivered, “it is easy to take the judicial word of the fact a huge range of Scheduled Caste Hindus, though having converted to Christianity and professing the said faith, name themselves Hindus on report for the motive of availing reservation”.Such folks are called crypto-Christians, the court docket brought.

That is due to the fact the census does no longer don’t forget the fact that a huge wide variety of Scheduled Caste Hindus, though having converted to Christianity and professing the stated religion, name themselves Hindus on report for the purpose of availing reservation, the court docket stated. Such people are known as crypto-Christians, the court brought.”there was even a moving image-based in this subject matter (Rudra Thandavam). Out of courtesy, I chorus from citing the call of a judge who belonged to any such category. There was even a writ petition difficult his status. All and sundry pretended as if they did now not recognize the fact. But while he died, he was buried as consistent with Christian rites in a cemetery,” the order said. The petitioner in his speech “boasts” stated that the demographics of Christians have crossed sixty-two percentage in Kanyakumari district, the courtroom referred to.” that is why, notwithstanding the census figures, the petitioner boasts that the Christians have crossed 62 in keeping with cent in Kanyakumari District. He foresees that they would quickly attain the determine of 72 consistent with cent. His triumphalism is obvious whilst he says “I warn the Hindus” and claims that not anything can prevent their increase,” the courtroom said. The courtroom cited that India changed into partitioned at the floor of religion and thousands and thousands died in the ensuing riots.” this is why our founding fathers consciously followed secularism as the guiding precept of the new republic. There may be something truly enthralling approximately the concept of India propounded by means of them. The fame quo inside the matter of non-secular demography has to be maintained,” the court said. But, the courtroom clarified that the constitution guarantees the fundamental right to profess and propagate one’s faith, and if an individual based on his non-public conviction, desires to change his faith, his desire has to be respected. However non-secular conversions cannot be a set timetable, the courtroom delivered.”Our charter speaks of the composite way of life. This individual must be maintained. The clock of records can in no way be put back. However the status quo that obtains within the year 2022 as regards non-secular demographic profile may additionally be maintained,” the courtroom opined.”If there’s a severe subversion of the reputation quo, calamitous consequences can also follow. The state is there to hold and uphold the rule of law. But if the tipping factor is reached, matters might also grow to be irreversible,” the court underscored. With those observations, the court refused to quash the detest speech case invoked towards the petitioner under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.