Backwards Class Status Of Converts To Islam: Apex Court Reserves Orders At Admission On Tamil Nadu's Appeal

The Supreme Court has reserved its order at the admission stage on a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, challenging the Madras High Court judgment, which held that converts to Islam cannot claim Backwards Class Status for reservations.

The Madras High Court held that upon conversion, the person becomes only a Muslim and nothing more.

It had struck down a Tamil Nadu Government Order that had allowed converts from Backwards Class, Most Backward Class, Denotified Community and Scheduled Caste backgrounds to be issued community certificates as belonging to one of the seven notified Backwards Class Muslim sects.

The State contended that Government Order (Ms) No. 31—issued on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backwards Classes Commission—merely protects affirmative action benefits so that exercising the fundamental right to freely practice religion under Article 25 does not result in the denial of reservation rights.

The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has reserved the orders in the matter after hearing the parties.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Siddharth Luthra appeared for the State/Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Respondents.

The original writ petitioner/Respondent, born a Hindu named Paramasivam, converted to Islam in 2015 and changed his name to Sameer Ahamed. He sought a community certificate certifying him as a Muslim Lebbai to avail Backwards Class reservation benefits.

The application was rejected by the Tahsildar, pursuant to which the petitioner then challenged the rejection relying on G.O. (Ms) No. 31 dated March 09, 2024, which the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission had recommended and the State Government had issued, directing that Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes converts to Islam be treated as Backward Class Muslims and issued community certificates as belonging to one of the seven notified sects.

The Madras High Court had held that the Tamil Nadu Government had no authority to issue a Government Order undermining a binding judicial decision, since the executive cannot override, review or revise a court's final judgment and any attempt to do so strikes at the rule of law. The Court additionally held that membership of a notified Muslim community, such as Labbai, Rowther, Marakkayar or Deccani Muslim, is determined solely by birth and cannot be acquired by conversion, since these are communities and not theological sects, and it is inconceivable in principle that a person can convert into one of them.

Challenging the judgment before the Supreme Court, the petition, filed by AOR B Karunakaran, submitted, "The Government Order was issued pursuant to the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission contained in Letter No.319/TNBCC/2023 dated 06.02.2024, after examining the legal position governing continuance of reservation benefits upon conversion to Islam. The recommendation formed the basis of G.O.(Ms.) No.31 and demonstrates that the policy was founded upon the opinion of an expert statutory body. G.O.(Ms.) No.31 is clarificatory in nature. It neither creates a new Backward Class nor includes any new community in the notified list, but merely regulates the continuance of reservation benefits to eligible persons who have embraced Islam, thereby ensuring that socially and educationally backward persons are not deprived of affirmative action solely on account of conversion."

The Petitioners herein were the District Collector, Thoothukudi District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District, who are aggrieved by the declaration of unconstitutionality of G.O.(Ms.) No.31 and the consequential findings having statewide ramifications. It was submitted that the impugned judgment gave rise to substantial questions concerning the permissible scope of interference with executive policy framed pursuant to the recommendation of an expert statutory commission.

It was averred, "Even otherwise, the High Court failed to appreciate the true scope and object of G.O.(Ms.) No.31. The Government Order neither creates a new backward class nor seeks to alter the list of notified Backward Class (Muslim) communities. It merely lays down the policy governing continuance of reservation benefits for eligible persons who have embraced Islam, pursuant to the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, so that exercise of the fundamental right to freely profess and practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution does not itself become a ground for denial of affirmative action."

The Petitioner-State said that the High Court erroneously proceeded on the footing that G.O.(Ms.) No.31 overrides earlier judicial precedents relating to conversion and community status. In doing so, it failed to appreciate that the Government Order operates in an altogether different field, namely, preservation of reservation benefits pursuant to an expert recommendation and implementation of executive policy, it added.

"The Hon'ble High Court further failed to appreciate that the judicial precedents relied upon by it dealt with acquisition of community status upon conversion. G.O.(Ms.) No.31, however, operates in an entirely different field by prescribing an executive policy governing continuance of reservation benefits pursuant to the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission. Consequently, the precedents relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court were distinguishable and could not have been made the basis for declaring the Government Order unconstitutional", the plea submitted.

The Petition also submitted, "The Hon'ble High Court in the impugned judgment reached the diametrically opposite conclusion, without appreciating that the legal character and effect of the Government Order were squarely decided by the coordinate bench. It is respectfully submitted that under the settled principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673, a Bench of coequal strength doubting the correctness of an earlier coequal Bench cannot disagree or dissent, and its only proper course is to have the matter placed before a larger Bench."

Finally, the plea prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment for it being a result of unwarranted interference with a policy decision taken by the State Government pursuant to the recommendation of an expert statutory body.

Accordingly, after hearing both parties, the Supreme Court reserved the matter for orders.

Cause Title: The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu v. Sameer Ahmed and Ors. [SLP(C) No. 25507/2026]