SC Upholds Madras HC Order Denying BC Reservation to Islam Converts
Tamil Nadu had contended that the state government's order dated March 9, 2024, was intended to ensure that persons belonging to socially and educationally backward communities were not deprived of reservation benefits solely because of conversion to Islam
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Madras High Court's decision that a person who has converted to Islam is not entitled to Backward Class (BC) reservation.
A bench of Justices PK Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar said that a person who converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim such benefits.
The Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order that quashed its decision recognising seven Backward Class Muslim sects. The state government's order allowed persons from backward classes to be treated as Backward Class Muslims after converting to Islam.
“A person who converts from 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 bench said while dismissing the state's plea.
The bench further noted that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, restricts Scheduled Caste status to persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism.
It added, “Backwardness suffered in the antecedent social order cannot by itself be carried forward 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.”
Tamil Nadu had contended that the state government's order dated March 9, 2024, was intended to ensure that persons belonging to socially and educationally backward communities were not deprived of reservation benefits solely because of conversion to Islam.
The appeal challenged the June 25 judgment that struck down the March 2024 government order (GO). The order stated that converts to Islam from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities or Scheduled Castes could be treated as BC (Muslim) for reservation purposes.
The GO also provided for the issuance of community certificates identifying eligible individuals as belonging to one of seven notified Muslim communities to avail reservation benefits after conversion.
The Madras High Court had held that the GO was contrary to judicial pronouncements by the High Court and the Supreme Court, which stated that a person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim.
The High Court had also noted that Christian missionaries and Islamic preachers had maintained that their religions offered social equality, unlike Hinduism, which has a caste hierarchy.
The case originated from a petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, who embraced Islam in 2015, changed his name and married according to his adopted religion.
Relying on the 2024 GO, he applied for a community certificate identifying him as a ‘Muslim Lebbai’, one of the seven Backward Class Muslim communities recognised under the Tamil Nadu government order.
After his application was rejected by the Tehsildar, Sameer approached the High Court, relying on the same GO to support his claim.
The state government had argued that the GO was issued after detailed deliberations to ensure that people who had already enjoyed reservation benefits would not lose them because of conversion to Islam. It also submitted before the High Court that granting reservation to such individuals would not affect the social balance.
The appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by the secretary to the Tamil Nadu government against the High Court's decision declaring the government order issued on March 9, 2024, unconstitutional.