Hindu backward class person converting to other religion not entitled to reservation: SC

The Supreme Court of India, on Thursday, October 15, ruled that a Scheduled Caste or Backward Class individual who converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu religion such as Islam or Christianity cannot claim affirmative action or reservation benefits based solely on their pre-conversion status.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar delivered the ruling while dismissing a Special Leave Petition preferred by the Tamil Nadu government against a Madras High Court judgement. The bench ordered, "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 top court's decision affirms the quashing of Tamil Nadu Government Order GO (Ms) No 314 issued on March 9, 2024. The order had allowed individuals converting to Islam from Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC), or Scheduled Castes (SC) to be issued community certificates under one of the seven notified Backward Class Muslim sects to avail a 3.5% statutory reservation. The seven notified sects under the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 are Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dudekula, Labbais (including Rowthar and Marakayar), Mapilla, Sheik, and Syed.

The legal battle originated from a plea filed by Sameer Ahamed (originally named Paramasivara), who converted from Hinduism to Islam in September 2015. A gazette notification was issued in November 2016, and he subsequently married according to Islamic customs. However, when Ahamed applied for a Backward Class (Muslim) community certificate as a "Muslim Labbai", the Kayathar Taluk Office rejected his application on November 13, 2020, stating he had "only converted to religion and not to the caste."

When Ahamed challenged the rejection before the Madras High Court relying on the 2024 GO, a bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji struck down the executive order as unconstitutional. The High Court held that the GO ran strictly counter to judicial precedents establishing that a person converting to Islam becomes solely a Muslim and cannot acquire membership in a specific backward caste community.

Validating the High Court's findings, Justice Mishra wrote in the judgement, "If the identity of a particular Backward Class of Muslim community is historically constituted by social membership, the mere declaration of conversion cannot be treated as proof of such membership." 

The apex court noted that "the defect in the GO impugned in the present case is not merely that a particular certificate was wrongly issued or wrongly refused. Rather, the defect lies deeper in the sense that the GO creates a rule by which the state treats the historical disadvantage of a person in one religion as sufficient proof of membership in a particular class in another religion."

The Supreme Court further observed, "The impugned GO does not explain why a Hindu belonging to one Backward Class community, another belonging to a Most Backward Class community, a member of a Denotified Community, and a person formerly belonging to a Scheduled Caste should, upon conversion to Islam, become members of one or another of seven pre-existing Muslim communities. We feel that there is no common nexus being demonstrated by the said GO and everything is approved on mere presumption."

The Supreme Court ruled that reservation is attached to a constitutionally identified class and not to an individual as a personal, transferable entitlement. "A person who converts from a Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action under Article 16(4) of Constitution merely on the basis of the social backwardness associated with his pre-conversion status; the 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," the bench emphasised.

Addressing the impact of conversion on caste disability, the bench stated, "Where a person was entitled to affirmative action under Article 16(4) of the Constitution by reason of the social backwardness within the Hindu social order, such entitlement is founded upon the disabilities which arose within, and were produced by, that social structure. Upon conversion to Islam or Christianity, or to any other non-Hindu social order in which caste is not recognised as the basis of social status and classification, that foundational basis ceases to operate in the same manner."

The court added, "The fact that the consequences of the earlier disability may continue in the form of educational deprivation, occupational disadvantage, economic hardship, or other material circumstances cannot carry the antecedent social backwardness into the new religion."

The judgement highlighted paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which explicitly restricts Scheduled Caste status to persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism. 

The court also ruled on the legal effect of reconversion to Hinduism, holding that "the question of his entitlement to affirmative action under Article 16(4) cannot be determined merely by reference to his antecedent status. Such entitlement would require an independent, fact-specific determination by the competent authority as to whether the original caste or social identity has genuinely revived upon reconversion."

Examining the role of local Jamaths, the bench rejected the state's submission that revenue authorities should accept a Jamath's determination without question. The Supreme Court held, "A private religious body cannot be vested with the authority to conclusively determine the community status of an individual for the purposes of statutory reservation. Such a power, carrying consequences in the sphere of public law, must flow from law and cannot be assumed by a private religious body ... A Jamath may certify that a person has embraced Islam ... however, it cannot, merely by issuing a testimonial, create or conclusively determine a statutory backward-class status."

Concluding its analysis on social stratification, the Supreme Court noted that while Islamic doctrine articulated in Surah Al-Hujurat (49:13) and the Prophet's Farewell Sermon is egalitarian, Indian Muslim society exhibits social groups like Ashraf, Ajlaf, and Arzal. However, these do not equate to a uniform caste hierarchy, and conversion cannot act as a "one-way bridge" to transport prior social status into a new religious identity.