New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that Hindus belonging to backward classes cannot claim quota benefits of that category after converting to Islam, saying backwardness suffered in the antecedent social order can’t be carried forward.
The court also said that a person professing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism cannot be believed to be a member of a scheduled caste.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against the Madras High Court order which held that a person converting to Islam can’t claim reservation under Backward Class (Muslim) category, solely on the basis of conversion.
While upholding the high court order which had quashed the Tamil Nadu government’s notification to grant reservation to converted Muslims, the top court said it called for no interference.
“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 on the basis of 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 has reached the conclusion 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 on the basis of the social backwardness associated with his pre-conversion status.
“A 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 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 concur 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 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.
It said conversely, where a person, after having converted from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order, reconverts to 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 backward-class communities in the state. This former caste or community patterns cannot automatically be transposed into the Muslim backward-class category, nor can a private religion body conclusively determine such statutory entitlement.”
On August 7, the top court had reserved its decision on the plea moved by the state government 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.
He subsequently married according to Islamic rites and sought a certificate identifying him as belonging to the “Muslim Lebbai” community to avail reservation benefits.
The state contended that it has the authority, based on the report of the TN 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).
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 Government Order issued on March 9, 2024.
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.
