By 
The Supreme Court has upheld the Madras High Court’s decision striking down a Tamil Nadu Government Order. The order had allowed people who convert from Hinduism to Islam to claim reservation under the Backward Class Muslim category, based on their earlier caste status.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the Tamil Nadu Government’s appeal, clarifying that converting to Islam does not, by itself, make a person a member of any of the seven Muslim communities recognised as Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu.
How the Case Began:
The case began with a petition from Sameer Ahamed, who was earlier known as Paramasivam. He was born into a Hindu family in Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu. He converted to Islam in 2015, and the conversion was officially recorded in a Gazette notification in 2016. He later married according to Islamic customs and has two children.
After converting, Ahamed applied for a community certificate saying he belonged to the Muslim Labbai community, which is one of the seven Muslim communities listed as Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu. The Tahsildar rejected his application, so he went to the Madras High Court.
Ahamed relied on a Government Order dated March 9, 2024. This order was issued by the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department.
It allowed people from Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC) and Scheduled Castes (SC) to get Backward Class Muslim certificates after converting to Islam.
The seven recognised Muslim communities are Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dubekula, Labbais (including Rowthar and Marakayar), Mapilla, Sheik and Syed.
While hearing Ahamed’s petition, the High Court questioned whether the Government Order was legal. It added the State Government as a party to the case to decide whether the order was constitutionally valid.
Tamil Nadu’s Defence:
The State defended the order. It said the order was issued on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, dated February 6, 2024.
The State said the policy was brought in after proper discussion, so that people who already receive reservation benefits would not lose them just because they converted to Islam.
It also argued that giving such benefits would not upset the existing social balance. According to the Government, the order was a valid policy decision based on the advice of an expert statutory body, and the High Court should not have struck it down.
Madras High Court’s Ruling:
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P.B. Balaji held that the Government Order went against legal principles set out in earlier court decisions.
The High Court noted that a person has the constitutional freedom under Article 25 to convert to another religion. However, it said that conversion does not automatically make the person a member of a particular caste or backward class community within the new religion.
The High Court separated religious conversion from membership in a notified backward community. It said that membership in such a community involves a distinct social identity, and cannot be gained just by changing religion.
The High Court therefore declared the Government Order unconstitutional and dismissed Ahamed’s petition. The Tamil Nadu Government, unhappy with this decision, went to the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Said:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court. It held that a person cannot ask for reservation benefits under Article 16(4) of the Constitution just because of the social disadvantages they faced before they changed their religion.
“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 his pre conversation status. 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,” the court said.
The Bench explained that a person’s earlier caste or community identity does not automatically carry over to a notified backward class community in another religion. It stressed that being socially backward in one community cannot, by itself, prove that a person belongs to a different community after conversion.
The Court also referred to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. This order limits Scheduled Caste recognition to people who follow Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism.
The Court clarified that a person who converts to a religion outside these three cannot keep Scheduled Caste status or claim benefits that depend on that status.
“By virtue of paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Schedule 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, a person converted 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,” the court said.
On the question of reconversion, the Court observed that going back to Hinduism does not automatically give a person their old caste based reservation rights again. Such claims must be checked separately, to see if the person’s original caste identity has truly come back and if the legal conditions are met.
“The social backwardness which formed the basis of the person’s pre-conversion status cannot by itself provide the legal foundation for conferring upon him membership of a different notified backward class community after conversion. 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,” the court observed.
The Bench also clarified that if a private religious organisation recognises a person, that cannot be the final word on whether the person is eligible for reservation under a notified backward class category.
The Supreme Court found that the Government Order, in effect, let people join a recognised Backward Class Muslim community without showing the legal and social connection to that community that is required. So the Court concluded that the High Court was right to strike down the order.
Supreme Court’s Final Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Tamil Nadu Government’s appeal. It upheld the Madras High Court’s judgment, which had declared the March 9, 2024 Government Order unconstitutional.
Case Title: The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed (Diary No. 39624/2026)
