NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, AUG. 7
In a case with far-reaching constitutional, social and policy implications, the Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s decision that a person who converts to Islam cannot claim reservation under the Backward Class (Muslim) category solely by virtue of conversion. The ruling, when delivered, is expected to shape the contours of reservation jurisprudence, the scope of executive policymaking and the rights of converts seeking affirmative action benefits.
- Supreme Court hears Tamil Nadu government’s challenge to Madras High Court verdict striking down 2024 Government Order
- State argues socially and educationally backward persons should not lose affirmative action benefits merely because of religious conversion
- High Court had ruled conversion alone cannot confer Backward Class (Muslim) status for reservation purposes
- Bench reserves judgment after detailed submissions by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra and Gopal Sankaranarayanan
- Verdict expected to have far-reaching implications for reservation policy, executive powers and conversion-related jurisprudence
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar reserved judgment after hearing extensive submissions from Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the respondent.
Appearing for the State, Mukul Rohatgi argued that the Government Order dated March 9, 2024, was intended to ensure that persons belonging to socially and educationally backward communities are not deprived of reservation benefits solely because they embraced Islam.
“The object of the Government Order 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.”
Rohatgi submitted that the Government Order merely sought to create a level playing field by preserving affirmative action benefits despite a change in religion, and was based on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, an expert statutory body.
The controversy arose from a petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, who embraced Islam in 2015, with his conversion officially notified in the Gazette in 2016. After marrying under Islamic rites, he applied for a Backward Class (Muslim) community certificate identifying him as belonging to the Muslim Lebbai community. His application was rejected by the Tahsildar, prompting him to approach the Madras High Court.
During the proceedings, the State maintained that, acting upon the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, it was competent to issue Backward Class (Muslim) community certificates to eligible persons from the Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes who had embraced Islam.
The State further contended that the High Court exceeded the scope of the writ petition by declaring Government Order (Ms.) No. 31 dated March 9, 2024 unconstitutional even though the petitioner had never challenged its constitutional validity.
“Neither the writ petition nor the affidavit contained any challenge to the validity of G.O.(Ms.) No.31… There was no pleading alleging that the Government Order was unconstitutional or ultra vires, no amendment incorporating such a challenge, and no prayer seeking its quashing,” the State submitted before the apex court.
According to the appeal, the Government Order was issued after considering the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, which had examined the legal framework governing the continuance of reservation benefits following conversion to Islam.
The State argued that the policy was clarificatory in nature, founded upon expert advice and intended to preserve affirmative action for historically disadvantaged communities irrespective of a change in religion.
On June 25, the Madras High Court struck down the Government Order, holding that it was contrary to binding precedents of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
The High Court ruled that conversion to Islam, by itself, does not entitle a person to claim reservation under any notified Backward Class (Muslim) community.
“A person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim and could not, by virtue of conversion alone, be classified as belonging to any specific notified Backward Class Muslim community for reservation purposes,” the High Court had held.
The State has challenged the ruling on the ground that it raises substantial questions regarding the permissible limits of judicial interference in executive policy formulated on the recommendations of an expert statutory commission, besides carrying significant statewide ramifications.
The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict, bringing to a close the hearing in a case that is expected to become an important precedent on the intersection of reservation policy, religious conversion, equality jurisprudence and executive authority.
