In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld a Madras High Court decision stating that converting from Hinduism to Islam does not automatically make a person eligible for Backward Class (Muslim) reservation benefits. The court stated that an individual who moves from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim reservation benefits on that basis alone.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government. The court said that a person cannot claim reservation benefits under the Backward Class (Muslim) category simply by converting from Hinduism to Islam.
"A person who converts to Islam by that act alone doesn't become a member of one of the seven notified backward class social communities in the State. His former caste status can't be transposed to the Muslim backward class category, nor can his private religious body conclusively determine such status entitlement."
The ruling came after the Tamil Nadu government challenged the Madras High Court's decision to cancel a government order recognising seven Backward Class Muslim communities. The order allowed people from certain backward communities to claim Backward Class (Muslim) status after converting to Islam.
The bench also noted that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, allows Scheduled Caste status only to people who follow Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism.
It added, “Backwardness suffered in the antecedent social order cannot by itself be carried forward so as to confer upon him the status of a backward class in the religion to which he has converted. By virtue of paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes Order), a person who professes a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”
What Happened?
On March 9, 2024, the Tamil Nadu government issued an order to ensure that people from socially and educationally backward communities did not lose reservation benefits simply because they converted to Islam.
The appeal was filed against a June 25 judgment in which the Madras High Court struck down the March 2024 government order. The order allowed people from the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to be treated as Backward Class (Muslim) members after converting to Islam.
Under the order, these individuals could receive community certificates identifying them as members of one of the seven recognised Backward Class Muslim communities to claim reservation benefits.
However, the High Court ruled that the order went against earlier judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. These judgments held that a person who converts to Islam can be recognised as a Muslim but cannot automatically claim membership in a specific backward class community.
The High Court also noted that Christian missionaries and Islamic preachers had argued that their religions offered social equality, unlike Hinduism, which has a caste hierarchy.
The case began with a petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, who converted to Islam in 2015, changed his name and married according to his adopted religion.
Relying on the 2024 government order, he applied for a community certificate identifying him as a ‘Muslim Lebbai’, one of the seven Backward Class Muslim communities recognised by the Tamil Nadu government.
After the Tehsildar rejected his application, Sameer approached the High Court, relying on the government order to support his claim.
The Tamil Nadu government argued that the order had been issued after detailed discussions to ensure that people who were already receiving reservation benefits would not lose them after converting to Islam.
The state government also argued before the High Court that granting reservation benefits to these individuals would not disturb the social balance.
The state government challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court. The appeal was filed by the state government's secretary against the judgment that declared the March 9, 2024, government order unconstitutional.
( With inputs from agency )