Tamil Nadu Challenges Madras HC Order Denying Backward Class Status To Islam Converts, Moves Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court's decision that struck down its 2024 GO as unconstitutional, in which it was held that a convert to Islam is only a Muslim and cannot claim Backward Class reservation.

By way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed on July 6, the state has challenged the Madurai Bench's June 2026 ruling.

Madras High Court recently struck down a Tamil Nadu Government Order that permitted persons 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, holding that the executive cannot override settled judicial principles through a government order.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji declared Government Order (GO) Ms. No. 15, dated March 9, 2024, unconstitutional, observing that a person may convert to Islam but cannot claim membership of a particular Muslim community or caste for reservation purposes.

"As a corollary, we hold that 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 Bench held.

The ruling came while deciding a writ petition filed by Sameer Ahamed, formerly known as Paramasivam, who was born into a Hindu family in Thoothukudi district. After converting to Islam in 2015 and changing his name, Ahamed married under Islamic rites and later applied for a community certificate identifying him as a Muslim Lebbai, one of the seven Muslim communities recognised as Backward Class Muslims in Tamil Nadu.

His application was rejected by the Tahsildar, prompting him to approach the High Court. During the proceedings, the petitioner relied on the 2024 Government Order, under which converts from reserved communities could obtain community certificates identifying them as one of the notified Backward Class Muslim groups. The State defended the policy, arguing that it merely ensured continuity of reservation benefits for individuals who had already been entitled to such benefits before embracing Islam. The government submitted that the policy was based on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission.

The High Court, however, rejected the State's justification. The Bench relied on the 1951 decision in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran, where the Madras High Court had held that a Hindu who converts to Islam becomes "just a Mussalman" and that his place within Muslim society is not determined by the caste into which he was born. The judges noted that the principle had subsequently received approval from the Supreme Court and therefore constituted binding law.

The Court also found the Government Order to be arbitrary because it grouped together converts from several distinct reserved categories into a single Backward Class Muslim category solely to preserve reservation benefits. "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," the Bench remarked.

Addressing the State's classification of Muslim communities, the Court observed that although Muslim society in India comprises different sects and communities, their membership is determined by birth.

"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," the Court said.

In a significant observation, the Bench described the impugned Government Order as being "not only unconstitutional but also un-Islamic." Referring to Islamic theology, the Court said that Islam is founded on the principle of equality and does not recognise social hierarchy.

"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," the Court observed.