Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Minority rights organisations and legal experts, on July 8, criticised the recent Madras High Court order for striking down reservation benefits for certain Hindu converts to Islam.
The judgement departs from legal principles and includes observations beyond the issues before the court, retired judge Hari Paranthaman, advocate Vanchinathan, former minister Mano Thangaraj, MLA MH Jawahirullah and other civil organisations said at a press meet in Chennai.
They have also urged the Tamil Nadu government to seek a reference to a larger bench instead of immediately challenging the ruling before the Supreme Court.
The controversy was triggered by a judgement delivered in June by a Division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji in a case filed by an individual named Sameer Ahamed.
Sameer Ahamed, who was earlier known as Paramasivam, born to a Hindu family in Thoothukudi district, embraced Islam in 2015 and officially changed his name in 2016.
He later applied for a community certificate recognising him as a member of the Backward Class (Muslim) category, but his application was rejected by the Tahsildar of Kayathar.
Challenging the rejection, he approached the Madras High Court in 2022.
While the case was pending, the Tamil Nadu government issued government order (GO) no 31 of 2024, allowing persons belonging to the BC, Most Backward Class (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC), and Scheduled Castes (SC), who convert to Islam to obtain BC (Muslim) community certificates and avail 3.5% reservation under the BC category.
However, the High Court in June 2026 struck down the GO, holding that although the Constitution protects an individual’s right to embrace and propagate religion under Article 25, conversion by itself does not entitle a person to membership in any of Tamil Nadu's seven notified BC (Muslim) communities.
Declaring the GO unconstitutional, the bench observed, “A convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim. He is only a Muslim and that's all there is to it.”
The judgement also described Islam as “a proselytising religion” and said the government order appeared to have been introduced after an earlier court decision discouraged conversions by denying reservation benefits to converts.
It further observed that “it is ridiculous to suggest that one can be converted into a Rowther Muslim,” holding that the state's notified BC (Muslim) communities are birth-based and that conversion to Islam alone does not imply membership in those communities.
Addressing the media, retired judge Justice Hari Paranthaman said courts are expected to safeguard the Constitution’s basic values, including secularism, equality, religious freedom and minority rights.
He said public confidence in the judiciary depends on courts consistently adhering to these constitutional values. Paranthaman contended that several observations in the judgement were unnecessary for deciding the legal dispute before the court.
“The observations describing Islam as ‘a proselytising religion’ were not necessary to decide the Sameer Ahamed case and could be understood as targeting an entire faith,” he said.
Advocate Vanchinathan alleged that the division bench had overlooked an earlier ruling by another bench comprising Justices MS Ramesh and Sakthivel, which had proceeded on the basis that GO no 31 was valid while hearing proceedings in another case.
“When coordinate benches take divergent views, the proper course of action is to refer the dispute to a larger bench for a conclusive ruling,” Vanchinathan said.
Vanchinathan and others also called on the Tamil Nadu government to amend the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Muslims (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2007, to create a statutory basis for extending reservation benefits to socially and educationally marginalised persons who convert to Islam.
Calling for further action, the participants urged the Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice GR Swaminathan, sought an in-house inquiry by the Supreme Court, and appealed to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court not to assign cases involving minority rights to the judge.
Former minister Mano Thangaraj demanded a uniform and transparent mechanism for granting building permissions to religious institutions, alleging that minority places of worship frequently face delays or refusals citing law and order concerns.
A conference of retired judges, lawyers and civil society organisations is to be held in Chennai in August to call for these demands.
He also criticised amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, alleging that they have adversely affected minority institutions.
“These amendments disproportionately affect minority institutions and places of worship and have a wider impact on marginalised communities,” he alleged.
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) governs the use of foreign donations by non-governmental organisations and other organisations in India.
The recent amendments in 2020 to the law have tightened rules on foreign funding, with the Union government claiming they improve transparency, while critics argue they restrict the functioning of civil society and minority organisations.