The Supreme Court today(October 15) upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court, which held that a person converting to Islam was not entitled to backward class reservation based on their pre-conversion status.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the challenge the Tamil Nadu government preferred against the High Court's order. It ordered: "A person who converts to Islam by that act alone doesn't become a member of one of the seven notified backward class social communities in the State. His former caste status can't be transposed to the Muslim backward class category, nor can his private religious body conclusively determine such status entitlement."

The bench pronounced the following conclusions :

• 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 social backwardness associated with their pre-conversion status.
• Backwardness suffered on account of an antecedent social order cannot, by itself, be carried forward so as to confer upon a person the status of a backward class in the social order to which they have converted.
• By virtue 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. Consequently, upon conversion to a religion not specified therein, such person ceases to possess Scheduled Caste status and cannot claim affirmative action or benefits under Article 16(4) that are dependent on membership of a Scheduled Caste.
• Conversion to a non-Hindu social order does not, by itself, confer membership of any particular backward caste community. A person's pre-conversion caste or community status cannot, merely by reason of conversion, be transposed into a notified backward class community in the post-conversion social order.
• The social backwardness that forms the basis of a person's pre-conversion status cannot, by itself, constitute the legal foundation for conferring membership of a different notified backward class community after conversion.
• Where a person converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order and subsequently reconverts to the Hindu social order, their entitlement to affirmative action cannot be determined merely by reference to their antecedent status. Such determination requires an independent, fact-specific assessment of whether the original caste or social identity has genuinely revived upon reconversion and whether the person has satisfied the applicable constitutional and legal requirements.
• No statutory benefit, protection, reservation or other entitlement under Article 16(4), the enjoyment of which is dependent on a particular social order, can be claimed merely on the basis of antecedent membership after a person has converted to Islam, Christianity or any other non-Hindu social order. Such conversion severs the legal foundation of an entitlement conditioned upon membership of the Hindu social order.

The High Court had declared as unconstitutional a Government Order issued in 2024 which allowed a person who converted to Islam from Backwards Classes, Most Backwards Classes, Denotified Communities, or Scheduled Castes to be treated as BC (Muslim) and be issued with a community certificate as belonging to one of the 7 notified sects for availing reservation upon conversion.

The 7 sects of Muslims, which have been notified as Backwards Class Muslims as per The Tamil Nadu Backwards Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993, are – Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dubekula, Labbais including Rowthar and Marakayar, Mapilla, Sheik, and Syed.

The High Court bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji held that the GO was strictly against the judicial pronouncements made by the High Court and the Supreme Court, holding that a person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim.

The High Court was hearing a plea by Sameer Ahamed, who had converted from the Hindu religion to Islam in 2015. A gazette notification was issued for the same in 2016. Sameer also married his wife as per Islamic rites and customs and had two children from the marriage.

While so, Sameer applied for a community certificate certifying him as belonging to the “Muslim Lebbai” community. The application was rejected by the Tahsildar against whom the present plea was filed. Sameer claimed that, as per the GO issued by the BC, MBC, and MW Department on March 9, 2024, he could be issued the certificate.

On going through the GO, the bench was of the opinion that it may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The bench thus impleaded the State as a party to test the validity of the GO.

The State argued that the GO was not arbitrarily issued. It was argued that the TN Backwards Classes Commission, vide letter dated February 6, 2024, recommended that the Government give a community certificate to persons belonging to Backwards Classes on conversion to any one of the 7 identified groups.

It was argued that the GO was passed after detailed deliberation. It was submitted that the GO was passed only to ensure that those who already enjoyed the benefits of reservation would not lose it on account of conversion to Islam. The state thus argued that social balance would not be affected by granting a reservation to such persons.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the State has filed the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court on July 6.

The State's petition has been filed through Advocate B Karunakaran AOR.

Case : The Secretary to Government v Sameer Ahamed | Diary No. 39624/2026