On converting to Islam, one is no longer Backward Class: Madras HC

The High Court struck down a 2024 Tamil Nadu government order that allowed converts to claim reservation benefits.

Chennai: A person who converts to Islam cannot claim the status of a Backward Class Muslim, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled, striking down a 2024 Tamil Nadu government order that allowed converts to claim such a designation for reservation benefits.

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji declared the government order (GO) unconstitutional while disposing of a petition filed by a man from Thoothukudi district who had converted from Hinduism to Islam and applied for a community certificate recognising him as “Muslim Lebbai.” The Kayathar Tahsildar had rejected his application, prompting the legal challenge.

What the GO said

The 2024 government order had directed that a person converting to Islam from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities or Scheduled Castes could be treated as BC (Muslim) for purposes of reservation and issued a community certificate under one of seven notified Muslim sects. 

The state had argued that only those who already enjoyed reservation benefits in their original religion would retain them upon conversion, and that those from forward communities would not be entitled to the BC (Muslim) tag.

What the High Court said

Rejecting this position, the court held that the law on the issue had been settled as far back as 1951, when the Madras High Court ruled that a Hindu converting to Islam becomes simply a Muslim, and his place in Muslim society is not determined by the caste he belonged to before conversion. That ruling was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court.

The bench said membership of a Muslim sect such as Rowther or Marakkayar is determined solely by birth and cannot be acquired through conversion. “It is ridiculous to suggest that one can be converted into a Rowther Muslim,” the judges observed.

‘Un-Islamic and unconstitutional’

The court also took pointed note of the contradiction in Islamic preachers historically arguing that their religion offers social equality, while simultaneously seeking to retain caste-like hierarchies within Muslim society for the purpose of reservations.

“Having taken such a stand for effecting conversions, it is disingenuous to claim that there is hierarchy in Islam also. Categorising certain sects as Backward and the remaining as Forward is antithetical to Quranic injunctions. Islam seeks to establish an egalitarian society,” the bench said.

The court further found that the GO had improperly clubbed Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes into the same category for the purpose of accommodating converts, something the Supreme Court had repeatedly held to be impermissible, since OBCs and SCs form distinct categories.

On the constitutional question, the bench held that the state government had effectively sought to override settled judicial decisions through an executive order, a power it does not possess.

“The doctrine of separation of powers is an entrenched principle in the Constitution. The legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect,” the court said, adding that the GO was issued precisely to undo court judgments, making it not only unconstitutional but, in the court’s own words, “un-Islamic.”

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with the GO declared unconstitutional.