SC reserves verdict on TN quota for Muslim converts

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its decision on a plea of the Tamil Nadu Government challenging a Madras High Court verdict which held that a person converting to Islam was not entitled to claim reservation under the Backward Class (Muslim) category solely on the basis of conversion.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar heard senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra for the State Government, who sought setting aside of the order.

Rohatgi submitted that the object behind the State Government’s 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.

He said the State Government’s order created a level playing field by preserving affirmative action benefits despite change of religion. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the respondent, the original petitioner, before the high court.

The high court’s judgment arose from a petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, who converted from Hinduism to Islam in 2015, with the conversion being notified through a Gazette notification in 2016.

He subsequently married according to Islamic rites and sought a certificate identifying him as belonging to the “Muslim Lebbai” community to avail reservation benefits. His application was rejected by the tahsildar, prompting him to move the High Court.

During the hearing, the State Government contended that it has the authority, based on the report of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, to issue backward classes (Muslim) community certificates to eligible persons who had embraced Islam among the backward classes, most backward classes, denotified communities and Scheduled Castes (SCs).

The bench reserved its verdict on the State Government’s plea on the issue. The State Government filed its plea through the district collector, Thoothukudi district and the revenue divisional officer, who were aggrieved by the declaration of unconstitutionality of Government order (GO)... No. 31 and the consequential findings having Statewide ramifications.

The State Government’s appeal said the impugned judgment gives rise to substantial questions concerning the permissible scope of interference with executive policy framed pursuant to the recommendation of an expert statutory commission.

It said the writ petitioner Sameer Ahamad had approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his application seeking issuance of a Backward Class (Muslim) community certificate as “Muslim Lebbai”.

“The only relief sought in the writ petition was for quashing the rejection order and for a consequential direction to issue the community certificate. Neither the writ petition nor the affidavit contained any challenge to the validity of G.O.(Ms.) No.31 dated March 9, 2024. There was no pleading alleging that the Government Order was unconstitutional or ultra vires, no amendment incorporating such a challenge, and no prayer seeking its quashing,” the State Government contended.

It said pending the writ proceedings before the High Court, the State Government, acting upon the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, issued the GO.

“It prescribes the policy governing issuance of Backward Class (Muslim) community certificates to eligible persons who had embraced Islam from among the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes.

“The object of the Government Order 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 and thereby to create a level playing field by preserving affirmative action benefits despite change of religion,” it had said.

The state Government further said the Government Order was issued pursuant to the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission contained in letter dated February 6, 2024, after examining the legal position governing continuance of reservation benefits upon conversion to Islam and the recommendation formed the basis of GO in question, which demonstrates that the policy was founded upon the opinion of an expert statutory body and was clarificatory in nature.

On June 25, the High Court held that a person converting to Islam was not entitled to claim reservation under the Backward Class (Muslim) category solely on the basis of conversion and declared unconstitutional the GO issued on March 9, 2024.

The High Court, while striking down the GO, held that it was contrary to binding judicial precedents of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.

It further observed that a person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim and could not, by virtue of conversion alone, be classified as belonging to any specific notified Backward Class Muslim community for reservation purposes.