SC to rule on Tamil Nadu quota for Muslim converts from backward classes

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to deliver its judgment on an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which seeks to defend its authority to provide reservation benefits to persons belonging to backward classes, most backward classes, denotified communities, and Scheduled Castes who convert to Islam.

A Bench led by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra reserved its orders on the State government's argument that it has the power, based on the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, to issue 'backward classes (Muslim)' community certificates to eligible converts. The State was represented by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra.

The State's appeal challenges a Madras High Court judgment delivered on June 25, which quashed the State government's order dated March 9, 2024, as unconstitutional. The High Court had held that "a person who embraces Islam cannot claim the status of backward class (Muslim)".

Defending the government order, the State argued that its objective was to ensure that "persons belonging to socially and educationally backward communities are not deprived of reservation benefits solely on account of conversion to Islam and thereby create a level playing field by preserving affirmative action benefits despite change of religion".

During the hearing, Justice Mishra orally referred to a 1951 judgment of the Madras High Court in G. Michael versus S. Venkateswaran, which upheld the constitutional validity of Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. That provision stipulated that no person professing a religion different from Hinduism — later amended to include Sikhism and Buddhism — should be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of benefits. The State, however, contended that this judgment did not prevent the State from classifying a convert, previously socially and educationally backward, as a backward Muslim under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.

The State further argued that the March 2024 order applied to a "wholly distinct category of backward class notification, which contains no religion-based exclusion".

The case originated from a petition filed by a man from Thoothukudi district who had embraced Islam and changed his name. Born to Hindu parents, he was issued a certificate by the Sunnath Jamath, Kayathar, in 2015 stating that he had converted. He later applied for a community certificate identifying him as 'Muslim Lebbai'. The Kayathar Tahsildar rejected his application, prompting him to move the court. During the pendency of his petition, the 2024 government order was notified, which worked in his favour.

However, the High Court, while striking down the order, observed that a Hindu who converts to Islam does not carry forward the benefits of his or her former caste or sub-caste. It noted that Christian missionaries and Islamic preachers have maintained that their religions offer social equality, unlike Hinduism, which has a caste hierarchy. The High Court remarked: "Having taken such a stand for effecting conversions, it is disingenuous to claim that there is hierarchy in Islam also. In our respectful view, categorising certain sects as Backward and the remaining as Forward is antithetical to Quranic injunctions. Islam seeks to establish an egalitarian society. Everyone is equal in the eye of God. There is no social hierarchy."

The Supreme Court will now decide whether the State's policy to extend reservation benefits to Muslim converts is constitutionally valid. The judgment is awaited.