Citation: The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed N. & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25507 of 2026, Supreme Court (Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar), decided on 15.10.2026 | Citation: 2026 INSC 1129
Backward class status under Article 16(4) that arises from the Hindu social order does not carry over by itself on conversion to Islam, Christianity or another non-Hindu religion. Conversion does not make a person a member of a particular notified community in the new religion, a community certificate only declares existing status and cannot be created by an executive order, and a private religious body such as a Jamath cannot conclusively determine a person’s entitlement to statutory reservation. On reconversion to Hinduism, entitlement requires a separate, fact-based decision by the competent authority.
The Supreme Court has upheld the Madras High Court’s decision striking down a 2024 Tamil Nadu government order that let Hindu converts to Islam, who belonged to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities or Scheduled Castes, get “Backward Class Muslim” community certificates.
Sameer Ahamed N., who was born a Hindu, converted to Islam in 2015 and applied for a “Muslim Labbai” certificate. This was rejected in 2020 on the ground that he had “converted to religion and not to the caste”. While his writ petition was pending, the State issued G.O. (Ms.) No. 314 of 9 March 2024 on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Commission, which allowed such converts to be certified as belonging to one of seven notified Backward Class Muslim communities. The Madras High Court quashed the order in June 2026, and the State appealed, arguing that the High Court went beyond the prayer in the writ petition and that the order merely preserved an existing benefit. Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the State’s appeal. On procedure, they held that the State had been impleaded, had filed its reply and had been heard, so the High Court could examine the order on which the petitioner’s own claim depended. On merits, they held that backwardness within the Hindu social order is rooted in caste, and that on conversion to Islam, Christianity or another non-Hindu social order, this foundation does not carry over, even though the consequences of past disadvantage may continue. Conversion shows a change in religion, and does not make a person a member of a particular notified community, such as Labbai or Rowther, which are historical social communities formed by ancestry and social recognition, and not religious denominations. The court said that Scheduled Caste status cannot be created by an executive order, and relied on the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and its recent Chinthada Anand ruling. It rejected the State’s distinction between “preserving” and “acquiring” a benefit, because a community certificate recognises present status, and it held that a Jamath, a private religious body, cannot decide a person’s statutory backward class status. The court laid down six principles, and said that a person who reconverts to Hinduism needs an independent, fact-specific determination of whether the original identity has revived. It did not question the Commission’s good faith, but said that an expert’s recommendation cannot cure a constitutional defect.