Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that a person who converts to Islam cannot claim the status of a Backward Class (Muslim) by seeking recognition as a member of one of the notified Muslim communities entitled to reservation benefits. In a significant judgment, the court declared unconstitutional a 2024 Tamil Nadu government order (G.O.) that permitted certain converts to Islam to be treated as belonging to Backward Class (Muslim) categories for reservation purposes.
The ruling came while disposing of a petition filed by a man from Thoothukudi district who had embraced Islam in 2015 after being born into a Hindu family. Following his conversion, he legally changed his name and obtained a certificate from the Sunnath Jamath, Kayathar, confirming his acceptance of Islam. He later applied for a community certificate identifying him as “Muslim Lebbai,” claiming to follow that particular sect. However, his application was rejected by the Tahsildar of Kayathar, prompting him to approach the High Court in 2022.
During the proceedings, the State government defended the 2024 G.O., arguing that its objective was to ensure that individuals belonging to Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC), or Scheduled Castes (SC) did not lose reservation benefits solely because they had converted to Islam. According to the government, such converts could be issued community certificates identifying them as belonging to one of the seven Muslim communities notified under the Backward Class category. It further clarified that converts from forward communities would not be eligible for the BC (Muslim) classification, maintaining that the policy would preserve social balance while protecting existing reservation entitlements.
A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji rejected the government’s position, observing that long-standing judicial precedents had already settled the issue. Referring to a Madras High Court judgment delivered in 1951, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that a Hindu who converts to Islam becomes “just a Muslim,” and that his or her social identity within the Muslim community cannot be determined by the caste or community from which the individual originated before conversion. The earlier ruling had also held that a person ceases to belong to any caste upon embracing Islam.
The court observed that both Christian missionaries and Islamic preachers had historically promoted their religions as offering social equality in contrast to the caste-based divisions associated with Hindu society. It stated that, in this context, it would be inconsistent to argue that Islam itself possesses a hierarchy that justifies categorising some Muslim groups as backward and others as forward.
At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that historical developments have resulted in social stratification within sections of the Muslim community. It remarked that certain Muslim communities, such as Rowther, Marakkayar and Deccani Muslims, are birth-based social groups. The judges observed that it would be unreasonable to suggest that an individual could become a member of such a community merely by converting to Islam, since those identities are traditionally acquired by birth rather than by religious conversion.
The court further held that the State government could not overturn or dilute binding judicial decisions through an executive order. Stressing the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the Bench said final judgments of constitutional courts cannot be rendered ineffective by administrative action. Since earlier judicial decisions had clearly established that conversion to Islam does not result in membership of any birth-based Muslim community, the government lacked the authority to introduce a policy recognising converts as belonging to one of the seven notified Backward Class (Muslim) groups.
The judges also criticised the structure of the 2024 G.O., noting that it grouped together converts from Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities under a common framework for assigning them to notified Muslim categories. The Bench observed that the Supreme Court has consistently recognised Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes as distinct constitutional categories and said treating them alike for this purpose reflected an arbitrary approach.
According to the court, the government’s attempt to preserve reservation benefits for converts had resulted in a policy that conflicted with established legal principles. It concluded that the executive order had effectively sought to undo binding court judgments through administrative innovation, which was impermissible under the Constitution.
Declaring the 2024 government order unconstitutional, the Division Bench held that a person who embraces Islam becomes a Muslim but cannot claim membership of a birth-based Muslim sect for reservation purposes. The petition was accordingly disposed of in light of the court’s findings, reaffirming the supremacy of judicial precedent and constitutional principles over executive action.
