The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court judgment that struck down a government order (GO) extending reservation benefits under the Backward Class (Muslim) category to certain Hindu converts to Islam.
The appeal, filed by the state’s Chief Secretary, challenges the Madurai bench’s June 2026 ruling, which declared unconstitutional the Tamil Nadu government’s GO No. 31 issued on March 9, 2024.
The GO allowed persons belonging to the Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC) and Scheduled Castes (SC) who converted to Islam to obtain Backward Class (Muslim) community certificates and avail reservation benefits under the BC (Muslim) quota.
The case arose from a petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, formerly Paramasivam, who was born into a Hindu family in Thoothukudi district and embraced Islam in 2015. After officially changing his name in 2016, he applied for a community certificate recognising him as a member of the Muslim Lebbai community, one of Tamil Nadu’s seven notified Backward Class (Muslim) communities. His application was rejected by the Kayathar Tahsildar, prompting him to move the Madras High Court in 2022.
While the case was pending, the Tamil Nadu government issued the 2024 GO permitting eligible converts from BC, MBC, DNC and SC communities to obtain BC (Muslim) certificates.
However, in June 2026, the High Court struck down the GO, holding that although Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to profess and propagate religion, conversion to Islam does not automatically entitle a person to membership in any of the state’s seven notified Backward Class (Muslim) communities.
Declaring the GO unconstitutional, the bench observed that “a convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim” and held that conversion alone does not confer membership of birth-based Muslim communities such as Lebbai or Rowther.
The court relied on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, including the G. Michael vs S. Venkateswaran case, which held that a Hindu who converts to Islam “becomes just a Mussalman” and ceases to belong to any caste. It also observed that recognising converts as members of specific Backward Class (Muslim) communities would be inconsistent with that precedent.
The judgment further stated that Islam seeks to establish an egalitarian society and questioned the constitutional validity of categorising some Muslim sects as backward while treating others as forward. It also described Islam as “a proselytising religion” and suggested that the government order appeared to have been issued after an earlier court decision had discouraged conversions by denying reservation benefits to converts.
The ruling has drawn criticism from minority rights groups, legal experts and political leaders, who argue that several observations in the judgment went beyond the legal issues before the court.
At a press conference in Chennai, retired judge Justice Hari Paranthaman, advocate Vanchinathan, former minister Mano Thangaraj, MLA MH Jawahirullah and representatives of civil society organisations said the judgment departed from settled legal principles and included remarks that were unnecessary to decide the case.
Justice Paranthaman said courts are expected to uphold constitutional values such as secularism, equality, religious freedom and minority rights. He argued that the observations describing Islam as “a proselytising religion” were unrelated to the legal dispute and could be perceived as targeting an entire faith.
The group also urged the Tamil Nadu government to seek a reference to a larger bench of the Madras High Court. The state has instead challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.
