In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that a Hindu belonging to a backward class could not claim the same reservation benefits as a Muslim member of a backward class merely on conversion to Islam. The court also said that a person professing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism cannot be considered a member of a Scheduled Caste. The ruling highlights how religious conversion affects eligibility for caste-based reservation and legal protections.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar clarified the law while dismissing a Tamil Nadu Government appeal seeking confirmation of the State’s policy to provide reservation benefits to members of backward classes, most backward classes, denotified communities and scheduled castes who embrace Islam.
“No statutory benefit, protection, reservation, or other entitlement under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, the enjoyment of which is predicated upon a particular Hindu social order, can be claimed or extended merely based on such antecedent membership after the person has converted to Islam, Christianity, or any other non-Hindu social order,” the bench held.
It said the court concluded that a person who converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action under Article 16(4) of the Constitution merely because of the social backwardness associated with his pre-conversion status.
“A backwardness suffered in the antecedent social order cannot by itself be carried forward to confer upon him the status of a backward class in the region to which he has converted…,” it said.
The top court further held that a person who professes a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism cannot be believed 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 status,” it said. It said that conversion to a non-Hindu social order does not by itself confer membership of any particular notified backward class community.
“A person’s pre-conversion caste or community status cannot, merely by reason of conversion, be transposed into membership of a distinct notified backward class community in the post-conversion social order,” it said, adding that social backwardness, which forms the basis of the person’s pre-conversion status, cannot by itself be the only legal foundation for conferring upon a membership of a different notified backward class community after conversion.
Conversely, where a person converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order and then reconverts to the the Hindu social order, 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, and whether the person satisfies the applicable constitutional and legal requirements for such affirmative action,” it held.
It concluded, “We, therefore, affirm the conclusion of the High Court, though our reasoning focuses 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 backwards-class communities in the state. These former caste or community patterns cannot automatically be transposed into the Muslim backward-class category, nor can a private religious body conclusively determine such statutory entitlement.”
On August 7, the top court reserved its decision on the plea the state government filed against the high court verdict. The state government had contended that the object behind its order of March 9, 2024 was to ensure that persons belonging to socially and educationally backward communities are not deprived of reservation benefits solely on account of conversion to Islam. The HC’s verdict came on a petition filed by one Sameer Ahamed, who converted from Hinduism to Islam in 2015, with the conversion being notified through a Gazette notification in 2016.