Denying Backward Classes benefits to converts to Islam is unconstitutional

Conversion and reservation. While the legal jurisprudence surrounding each of these concepts is vast and complex, their intersection creates a compounding effect that is, to say the least, muddled and unsettling.The latest addition to this discourse is the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sameer Ahamed v. The District Collector, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P.B. Balaji. The Bench struck down a 2024 Government Order (GO) issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional. The order entitled persons belonging to the Backward Classes and others who have converted to one of the seven notified sects of Backward Class Muslims to a Backward Class community certificate. Ultimately, the Bench held that a convert to Islam becomes “just a Muslim” and cannot claim the status of a Backward Class Muslim.Before getting to the gravamen, it is important to understand the broader legal landscape governing the reservation treatment of converts from Hinduism to other religions. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (“SC Order”), which has been pending before the Supreme Court in a long-drawn challenge, stipulates that “no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.” Consequently, the majority of judicial precedents holds that a Scheduled Caste person who converts from Hinduism ceases to be a Scheduled Caste on account of this order. While there are still exceptions to this majority proposition and while the author believes that this provision does not withstand the test of constitutionality, for the case at hand, it is conspicuous to note that there is no corresponding provision or law for any other reserved communities, including the Backward Classes.Against established precedentThe Madras High Court’s reasoning in Sameer Ahamed is twofold: there is established precedent to state that a Backward Class Hindu will cease to hold the Backward Class status upon conversion to another religion, and the GO is against these established precedents and hence is bad in law. However, both of these reasons are flawed.The Bench primarily relied on G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran (1951, Madras High Court) and C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary (2024, Supreme Court) to show established precedent, both of which dealt with converts belonging to the Scheduled Castes (to which the SC Order applies) and not converts belonging to the Backward Classes (which is the case at hand).The Bench relied heavily on the U. Akbar Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022, Madras High Court) judgment passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan (one of the Division Bench judges in the present case) in which the court passed a similar judgment holding that a Backward Class person who converts to any religion from Hinduism loses his Backward Class status upon conversion. The judgment in Akbar Ali is, in fact, contradictory to established precedents given the Madras High Court has, on at least two occasions previously, held that Backward Class Hindus will not lose their Backward Class status upon conversion (M. Raja Mohammed vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2011; M.U. Aariffaa vs. Secretary to the Government, 2014).The court in M. Raja rightly held that “conversion cannot be taken to disadvantage of the Petitioner” given the right to convert to a religion of one’s choice forms an intrinsic part of Article 25 of the Constitution, and denying reservations to persons recognised as Backward Classes on the sole ground that they have converted to a different religion indirectly infringes this intrinsic right under Article 25. The Bench holds that the GO has been passed post the U. Akbar Ali judgment solely with the intention to overcome the judicial precedent which is not permissible and hence is unconstitutional. Given U. Akbar Ali itself is not in accordance with established precedents as stated above, this reasoning falls.Arbitrariness and incoherenceFurther, the Bench struck down the GO as “arbitrary” because it bunches persons from different reservation categories (BC, MBC, DNC, SC) into a single category of Backward Class (Muslim). However, the Bench’s reasoning effectively leaves a person who was demonstrably socially backward and entitled to reservation benefits immediately prior to conversion entirely divested of those benefits merely upon conversion, which is, in fact, starkly arbitrary. The GO is backed by reports and recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission and the Mandal Commission, which held that “conversion from one faith to another did not change the socio-economic status of a person”, and thus sets out a constitutionally compliant framework.The Bench lastly holds that it is “disingenuous” to claim there is hierarchy in Islam, and categorising certain sects as Backward and others as forward is “antithetical to Quranic injunctions”. Yet in the immediately succeeding sentence, the Bench acknowledges that “due to historical reasons, the Islamic society is also stratified into various communities” and that “one can even boldly remark that they are akin to caste in Hinduism”. It then proceeds to hold that “just as caste is determined by birth, one is a Rowther or Marakkayar or Deccani Muslim by birth alone”. All of this appears in a single paragraph, which is, at best, incoherent.Deeply troublingThe implications of this judgment and this line of reasoning are thus deeply troubling, more so given the backdrop of a political landscape increasingly defined by majoritarian undercurrents.Faith and worship are profoundly personal matters, and every individual is guaranteed the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion under Article 25. Any restrictions to this right, outside the strict bounds of the Constitution, should ideally be nipped in the bud. The flower has, however, already bloomed in respect of Scheduled Caste converts, given that petitions challenging the SC Order have languished before the Supreme Court for over a decade. The Tamil Nadu government has rightly filed an appeal against this judgment before the Supreme Court and it is high time the Supreme Court intervened and cleared the air before this line of reasoning hardens into precedent, further compounding an already-fractured jurisprudence.The author is a lawyer. Views expressed are personal