The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court struck down a Tamil Nadu Government Order granting Backward Class (Muslim) reservation benefits to certain Hindu converts to Islam, declaring it unconstitutional. The Court held, “A convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim. He is only a Muslim and that’s all there is to it.”
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has declared unconstitutional a Tamil Nadu Government Order that allowed certain Hindu converts to Islam to obtain Backward Class (Muslim) status for reservation benefits.
The Court held that a person who converts to Islam cannot automatically become a member of any notified Backward Class Muslim community merely by conversion.
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P.B. Balaji delivered the judgment while dismissing a writ petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, who had sought a community certificate identifying him as “Muslim Lebbai.”
The petitioner was born as Paramasivam to a Hindu family in Thoothukudi district on April 12, 1993. He converted to Islam in September 2015, changed his name to Sameer Ahamed, and officially published the change in the Tamil Nadu Gazette in November 2016.
He later married according to Islamic customs and has two children. He applied for a community certificate identifying him as “Muslim Lebbai,” claiming to follow the faith of the Lebbai Muslim community.
However, his application was rejected by the Tahsildar, leading him to approach the High Court.
The Court observed that when the writ petition was originally filed in 2022, the petitioner had no legal basis to seek such a certificate. His claim became possible only after the Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O. (Ms.) No.31 dated March 9, 2024.
The Government Order permitted persons belonging to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes, who converted to Islam, to obtain Backward Class (Muslim) community certificates by treating them as belonging to one of the seven notified Muslim communities.
Defending the Government Order, the State argued that it had been issued after the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission.
According to the Government, the purpose was to ensure that persons who were already enjoying reservation benefits before conversion would not lose those benefits merely because they embraced Islam. It was further argued that only converts from already reserved categories would benefit and that once a Jamath accepted a convert and issued a certificate, revenue authorities should not question it.
The High Court, however, disagreed.
The Bench explained that reservation under the Constitution is intended for socially and educationally backward classes and not on the basis of religion alone. It noted that Tamil Nadu has specifically recognised only seven Muslim communities as Backward Class Muslims Ansar, Dekkani Muslims, Dubekula, Labbais (including Rowthar and Marakayar), Mapilla, Sheik and Syed.
The Court relied upon several judicial precedents, including the 1952 Division Bench judgment in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran, which had held that once a Hindu converts to Islam, the person simply becomes a Muslim and does not carry the caste identity into the new religion.
The Bench noted that this principle had later been approved by the Supreme Court in Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi, K.P. Manu v. Scrutiny Committee and C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary-cum-District Collector.
The judges also referred to Islamic teachings while examining the issue. Quoting Surah Al-Hujurat (49:13) of the Holy Quran and the Prophet Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon, the Court observed that Islam emphasises equality among believers and does not recognise superiority based on birth.
The Bench remarked,
“As held by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court more than 75 years ago, upon conversion to Islam, one becomes a Muslim. The Hon’ble Division Bench used the expression ‘just a Mussalman’. He cannot be pigeonholed into any particular sect or community which can be only by virtue of one’s birth therein.”
The Court further held that membership of notified Muslim communities such as Labbai, Syed, Sheik or Rowther is acquired by birth and not by conversion. Therefore, the Government could not legally treat converts as members of these communities through an executive order.
The Bench also held that the executive cannot override binding judicial precedents through a Government Order. It observed that the doctrine of separation of powers prevents the Government from nullifying or bypassing settled law laid down by constitutional courts. According to the judges, G.O. (Ms.) No.31 attempted to undo long-standing judicial decisions and was therefore unconstitutional.
The Court additionally criticised the Government’s approach of clubbing Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities together under one policy for converts, observing that such grouping ignored constitutional distinctions recognised by the Supreme Court.
Declaring the Government Order unconstitutional, the Court upheld the Tahsildar’s rejection of the petitioner’s application and dismissed the writ petition.
In its concluding observations, the Bench categorically held,
“A convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim. He is only a Muslim and that’s all there is to it.”
The writ petition was dismissed after the court upheld the Tahsildar’s decision rejecting the petitioner’s request for a certificate from the Muslim Lebbai community.
Case Title: Sameer Ahmad Vs District Collector