New Delhi, India – The Supreme Court, in an October 15 judgment, declared that a Hindu who had converted to a “non-Hindu order” cannot claim the benefits of reservation. A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that a person who converts from a 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 controversy in the case of Secretary to Government versus Sameer Ahamed N. began with a man, born to Hindu parents in 1993 at Thoothukudi district in Tamil Nadu, who voluntarily converted to Islam in September 2015. After embracing Islam, Paramasivara—who changed his name to Sameer Ahamed—confirmed his choice by marrying within the community and professed the faith of Labbai Muslims. He procured a testimonial of his conversion from the Sunnath Jamath and applied to the local taluk office in November 2020 for a Backward Class (Muslim) community certificate to claim a share of the state’s quota benefits.
The local authorities rejected his application, ruling that while he had converted his religion, he had not transformed his underlying caste. Challenging this rejection before the Madras High Court, Ahamed received unexpected legislative support when the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Commission recommended a mechanism to assist proselytes. Consequently, the State Government issued G.O.(Ms.) No. 31 on March 9, 2024, permitting individuals belonging to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, or Denotified Communities prior to conversion to obtain Backward Class Muslim certificates if they integrated into any of the seven recognised Muslim sub-groups. However, the Madras High Court struck down this government order, reasoning that a person who converts to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class (Muslim) and that a Hindu, on conversion to Islam, did not carry forward the benefits of the Hindu caste or sub-caste.
The State of Tamil Nadu appealed before the Supreme Court, submitting that the intent of its order was to ensure that persons belonging to socially and educationally backward communities were not deprived of reservation benefits solely for converting to Islam. The State argued that its government order applied to the “wholly distinct category of backward class notification, which contains no religion-based exclusion.” It further referred to the court’s judgment in the Indira Sawhney case that observed that among non-Hindus, there were several occupational groups, sects, and denominations, which for historical reasons were socially backward.
The judgment authored by Justice Mishra dismissed the State’s appeal while upholding the Madras High Court’s decision. The court held that a private religious body, like a Jamath, cannot, by issuing a testimonial, conclusively determine a statutory Backward Class status. The apex court said the deep-rooted flaw in the March 2024 government order was that it treated the historical disadvantage of a person in one religion as sufficient proof of membership in a particular Backward class in another religion. Besides, the court said that a Scheduled Caste status of a person could neither be altered nor recreated by a mere government order. A Scheduled Caste status was specifically governed by Article 341, which mandated that only the President could notify a group as Scheduled Caste.
The October 15 judgment has closed off administrative shortcuts created by states attempting to ease transfers of reservation. The court made it clear that community certificates cannot be deployed as an instrument to create a new social status. The ruling confirms that affirmative action remedies are tailored to group-based disadvantages recognised under specific legal frameworks.
