In a major development, the Supreme Court has upheld the Madras High Court judgment that struck down Tamil Nadu government order allowing people belonging to SCs, backward classes, most backward classes and denotified communities to avail backward class (BC) Muslim certificate after conversion to Islam.
The verdict comes months after the Tamil Nadu government filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court. A 2-judge bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar decided the matter.
The court held that the caste/ community status prior to conversion cannot be transposed upon conversion to a new religion. It pointed out that a government order like the one issued by the Tamil Nadu creates an artificial route for availing reservation.
The Judges held, “We therefore affirm the central conclusion of the High Court, though our reasoning proceeds on the constitutional foundation set out above. A person who converts to Islam does not by that act alone become a member of any one of the seven notified backward class Muslim communities in the state. His former caste or community status cannot automatically be transposed into the Muslim backward class category, nor can a private religious body conclusively determine such statutory entitlement.”
They further added, “Tested on that standard, we are of the view that the impugned GO cannot be sustained and has been rightly quashed by the High Court. It creates an artificial route by which a person moves from a pre-conversion social or backward social order into a notified Muslim backward class without establishing the necessary social and legal link. Therefore, the declaration made by the High Court that the impugned GO itself (is) unsustainable in law calls for no interference“, the apex court stated.
The Supreme Court pointed out, “A person who converts from a Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action under Article 16(4) of the 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 forwards 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. Consequently, upon conversion to a religion not specified therein, such person ceases to possess the Scheduled Caste status attached to his antecedent caste and cannot claim any affirmative action benefit of a backward class under Article 16(4) of the Constitution which is predicated upon membership of a Scheduled Caste,” it emphasised.
The Background of the Case
The original petition was filed by a Muslim convert named Sameer Ahamed (formerly Paramasivam) in 2022. The man was born into a Hindu family in the Thoothukudi district in April 1993 and had converted to Islam in September 2015. He was issued a certificate of conversion by Sunnath Jamath, Kayathar.
Subsequently, he filed an application before the Tahsildar, Kayathar, seeking to be certified as ‘Muslim Lebbai’, a community of Muslims eligible for reservation benefits in the state. However, his application was rejected, prompting him to file a writ petition before the High Court.
The petitioner relied on a Tamil Nadu government order dated March 3, 2024, which allowed a convert to Islam from Backward Classes (BCs), Most Backward Classes (MBCs), Denotified Communities (DNCs), or Scheduled Castes (SCs) to be treated as BC (Muslim) for availing the benefit of reservation.
As per the order, such a convert could avail the reservation benefits meant after obtaining a community certificate certifying that he belongs to either of the notified communities. In other words, the government order provided that converts who enjoyed reservation benefits before conversion to Islam can continue to avail reservation benefits after conversion.
The petitioner’s counsel admitted that the petition filed in 2022 became legally arguable only after the 2024 government order. The High Court, therefore, examined the constitutional validity of the government order.
The Madras High Court concluded that the Tamil Nadu government order was unconstitutional. Citing judicial precedents, the court said that if a person converts to Islam, he becomes a Muslim, and his place in Muslim society is not determined by the caste to which he belonged before his conversion.
The High Court explained that the seven Muslim categories recognised for reservation are historically identified communities and membership in those communities is ordinarily determined by birth, not conversion.
“As a corollary, we hold that 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 High Court held.
Regarding the Tamil Nadu government order, the Division Bench observed that the Tamil Nadu government came up with the order just to override the judicial precedents prohibiting reservation benefits for converts to Islam, as they disincentivised conversion to Islam.
This would not have sat right with the Muslim community, as Islam is a proselytising religion, and thus the government passed the order to extend reservation benefits for converts to Islam.
The Madras High Court also pointed out that the order was passed merely for the purpose of extending reservation benefits for converts to Islam.
Striking at the validity of the government order, the High Court said that the legislature cannot declare a binding judicial precedent void or ineffective. The court further reasoned that the executive does not have the privilege to pass an order overriding a final judicial decision.
“While the legislature has the power and competence to make a validating law, the executive has no such privilege. It can never go against the final judgment of a court,” it added.
The Division Bench further noted that the government order was not only unconstitutional and arbitrary but also opposed to the ideology of Islam.
The court noted that preachers of Islam have long effected conversions by claiming that their religion is free from hierarchies and is egalitarian, unlike Hinduism. Considering this, the government order goes against the values and principles of Islam.
“We have no option but to conclude that, only to undo the judgments of this Court, has the Government come out with an innovation that is not only unconstitutional but also un-Islamic,” the High Court said, striking down the government order on 25th June 2026.
