The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Madras High Court’s June 2026 ruling. The judgment had struck down a government order granting Backward Class Muslim reservation benefits to eligible converts to Islam.
Tamil Nadu’s government has moved the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) on July 6 challenging the Madras High Court’s June 2026 decision that struck down a state order which allowed persons who convert to Islam to seek reservation benefits by claiming Backward Class Muslim status.
In its decision, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) set aside a Tamil Nadu Government Order that permitted people belonging to Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC), and Scheduled Castes (SC) to be treated as Backward Class Muslims after converting to Islam.
The High Court held that the executive could not disturb or override settled judicial principles merely through a government order.
ALSO READ: A Convert to Islam Cannot Claim Backward Class Muslim Status: Madras High Court
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, previously known as Paramasivam. He was born into a Hindu family in Thoothukudi district. After converting to Islam in 2015 and changing his name, he married under Islamic rites. He then applied for a community certificate identifying him as a Muslim Lebbai, which is one of the seven Muslim communities recognised as Backward Class Muslims in Tamil Nadu.
His application was rejected by the Tahsildar, leading him to approach the High Court. During the proceedings, the petitioner relied on a 2024 Government Order, which stated that converts coming from reserved communities could obtain community certificates identifying them with one of the notified Backward Class Muslim groups.
The State defended the policy by contending that it was intended only to ensure continuity of reservation benefits for individuals who had already been entitled to such benefits before embracing Islam.
The government also submitted that the measure was based on recommendations made by the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission.
However, the High Court rejected the State’s justification. The Bench relied on the earlier Madras High Court ruling in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran (1951), which held that a Hindu who converts to Islam becomes just a Mussalman, and that a person’s placement in Muslim society is not decided by the caste into which they were born. The judges noted that this principle had later received approval from the Supreme Court, and therefore amounted to binding law.
The Court further found the Government Order to be arbitrary, observing that it grouped converts from several different reserved categories into a single Backward Class Muslim category solely to preserve reservation advantages.
The Bench remarked,
“Just for the sake of ensuring that the converts to Islam continue to enjoy some form of reservation benefit, such a bunching has been done by the State Government,”
On the question of how Muslim communities are identified, the High Court observed that while Indian Muslim society includes different sects and communities, membership is determined by birth. It noted that Muslim community identity operates similarly to caste in Hinduism.
The Court said.
“One can even boldly remark that they are akin to caste in Hinduism. Just as caste is determined by birth, one is a Rowther or Marakkayar or Deccani Muslim by birth alone. It is ridiculous to suggest that one can be converted into a Rowther Muslim,”
Making a broader constitutional and theological critique, the Bench described the impugned Government Order as follows, “not only unconstitutional but also un-Islamic.”
Referring to Islamic theology, the Bench stated that Islam is founded on equality and rejects social hierarchy.
The Court observed,
“The Christian missionaries as well as Islamic preachers harangued through decades and centuries that their religions offer social equality unlike Hinduism which has caste as its inherent feature. 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,”
Case Title: The Secretary to Government v Sameer Ahamed, Diary No. 39624/2026