The Supreme Court has held that a person converting from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu religion cannot claim reservation benefits under Article 16(4) of the Constitution solely on the basis of social backwardness associated with their pre-conversion caste or community status.

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the Tamil Nadu Government's challenge to a Madras High Court judgment that struck down a 2024 Government Order permitting certain persons who converted to Islam to claim reservation under the Backward Class (Muslim) category.

In The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, observing that conversion does not automatically confer membership of a particular notified Backward Class community. <Cite refs={["turn894471view0","turn894471search1"]}/>

Pre-Conversion Caste Status Cannot Automatically Be Carried Forward

The Supreme Court held that a person's caste or community status before conversion cannot, merely because of conversion, be transferred to a different notified Backward Class community in the new religious and social order.

The Bench observed:

“A person who converts to Islam by that act alone doesn't become a member of one of the seven notified backward class social communities in the State.”

The Court further clarified that backwardness experienced in an earlier social order cannot, by itself, establish entitlement to affirmative action benefits associated with membership of a different community after conversion. <Cite refs={["turn894471view0","turn894471search0"]}/>

Scheduled Caste Status After Religious Conversion

The Supreme Court also reiterated the legal position under Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

Under the existing framework, a person professing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. Consequently, conversion to a religion outside these specified categories results in the loss of Scheduled Caste status attached to the person's antecedent caste.

The Court held that benefits dependent upon Scheduled Caste membership cannot be claimed solely on the basis of the person's former caste status after such conversion. <Cite refs={["turn894471view0","turn894471search1"]}/>

Background: Tamil Nadu Government Order of March 2024

The case arose from a Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu Government on March 9, 2024. The order sought to facilitate the issuance of community certificates to persons who had converted to Islam from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities or Scheduled Castes, enabling them to claim membership in one of seven notified Backward Class Muslim communities.

These communities are Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dubekula, Labbais (including Rowthar and Marakayar), Mapilla, Sheik and Syed.

The Government Order was challenged in proceedings arising from the case of Sameer Ahamed, who had converted to Islam and sought a community certificate identifying him as belonging to the Muslim Lebbai community. His application was rejected by the revenue authorities. <Cite refs={["turn894471view0","turn894471search1"]}/>

The Madras High Court, in its judgment dated June 25, 2026, struck down the Government Order, holding that conversion to Islam did not automatically establish membership of one of the notified Backward Class Muslim communities. The Tamil Nadu Government subsequently challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Upholds Madras High Court Judgment

Agreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the Government Order created an artificial route through which a person could move from a pre-conversion caste or social category into a notified Muslim Backward Class community without establishing the necessary social and legal connection.

The Bench noted that the seven notified Muslim communities were distinct social communities and that conversion alone could not establish membership of any of them.

The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the High Court's decision striking down the Government Order. <Cite refs={["turn894471view0","turn894471search0"]}/>

Reconversion Requires Independent Examination

The Supreme Court also clarified that a person who converts from the Hindu social order to a non-Hindu religion and subsequently reconverts to Hinduism does not automatically regain entitlement to affirmative action benefits based solely on their earlier status.

Such entitlement requires an independent, fact-specific assessment of whether the original caste or social identity has genuinely revived and whether the applicable constitutional and legal requirements have been satisfied. <Cite refs={["turn894471view0","turn894471search1"]}/>

Conclusion

The judgment clarifies that religious conversion does not, by itself, establish membership of a different notified Backward Class community or preserve reservation entitlements that depend on a particular social status.

By upholding the Madras High Court's decision, the Supreme Court has emphasised that eligibility for reservation must be established under the applicable constitutional and statutory framework and cannot be presumed solely from a person's pre-conversion caste or community.

Case Title: The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed

Citation: 2026 INSC 1129

Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar

Decision Date: October 15, 2026