Court says membership of recognised Backward Class Muslim communities cannot be claimed solely on the basis of religious conversion.
CHENNAI — The Madras High Court has struck down a Tamil Nadu government order that allowed certain individuals who converted to Islam to continue availing reservation benefits under the Backward Class (BC) Muslim category, holding that religious conversion by itself does not entitle a person to claim membership of a recognised BC Muslim community.
The ruling is being viewed as a significant judgment in the continuing debate over the relationship between reservation benefits and religious conversion.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P.B. Balaji delivered the verdict on Friday, setting aside a government order issued on March 9, 2024.
The government order had provided that individuals belonging to the Backward Class (BC), Most Backward Class (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC) and Scheduled Castes who embraced Islam would continue to receive reservation benefits under the BC Muslim category.
However, the High Court held that the State could not alter settled legal principles through an executive order.
“The executive cannot issue orders contrary to judicially settled legal positions,” the Bench observed.
In its judgment, the court said: “A person who embraces Islam becomes only a Muslim. He cannot claim to be a Backward Class Muslim merely on the basis of conversion.”
The Bench noted that Tamil Nadu recognises seven specific Muslim communities under the BC Muslim category, with membership determined by birth and community identity rather than religion alone.
According to the court, conversion to Islam does not automatically confer membership of any of these recognised communities. It observed that a convert may become a Muslim in religious terms but cannot claim to belong to communities such as Labbai, Rowther, Marakkayar or Syed solely because of conversion.
The court also found fault with the government’s proposal to issue community certificates identifying converts as members of recognised BC Muslim communities, holding that such a classification had no basis under the existing legal framework governing reservation and community classification in the State.
According to the Bench, the executive order attempted to create a legal status that is not recognised under law.
During the hearing, the court referred to a 1951 Madras High Court judgment that dealt with a similar issue. That ruling held that while a Hindu who converts to Islam becomes a Muslim, the individual does not automatically become a member of any specific Muslim social group. The Bench observed that the principle laid down in the earlier judgment continues to hold the field.
The judgment also discussed the social structure of Muslim communities in India. While noting that Islam advocates equality and rejects social discrimination, the court observed that distinct Muslim communities have evolved over time with separate social identities and histories, which cannot automatically be acquired through religious conversion.
Legal experts say the ruling could have wider implications for reservation policies involving religious converts and may influence similar disputes in other states.
The judgment is also expected to reignite debate among policymakers, social justice advocates and community organisations over the criteria for determining eligibility for reservation benefits.
Supporters of the government order had argued that converts should not lose access to affirmative action benefits after changing their religion. Critics, however, contended that reservation under specific community categories must remain linked to legally recognised social groups rather than religion alone.
The Tamil Nadu government has not indicated whether it will challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court.
For now, the High Court’s decision makes it clear that conversion to Islam, by itself, does not entitle a person to reservation benefits available to recognised Backward Class Muslim communities in Tamil Nadu unless the individual independently satisfies the legal requirements for membership of those communities.
The ruling is likely to remain the subject of legal and political debate, as it touches upon two significant issues within India’s constitutional framework—affirmative action and religious conversion.
