Can a Hindu who converted to Islam ask for reservation privileges as a candidate from a backward community (BC)?
The Madras High Court disagreed, stating that after conversion, a person cannot keep his community of birth. However the court , emphasized that the Supreme Court is currently making a decision on the matter.
The Madras High Court stated in a broad statement on Friday that someone “cannot carry his caste after conversion to another religion.” The statement was made when Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court rejected the petition brought by a converted Muslim seeking to receive benefits of reservation under the Backward Class (Muslim) category. Madras high court decided that caste is not carried through with religious conversion.
When a person born as a hindu converts into another religion that does not follow or recognize the caste system , the converted person no longer belongs to the caste he was born into, Justice Swaminathan noted, while citing several Supreme Court decisions like.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian’s 2013 ruling in S. Yasmine v. The Secretary, TNPSC, in saying that a person cannot retain his community of birth even after conversion.
In the case ofS.Yasmine v. The Secretary, of TNPSC reported in 2013 According to Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian (As His Lordship Then Was), the TNPSC was correct to classify a candidate who converted to Islam as a member of “other groups.”
The Ramanathapuram District Certificate issued by the Kazi of the Tamil Nadu Government on December 25, 2012, is enclosed by the petitioner. It states that the petitioner had accepted Islam by his own free will, that he had become a member of the Muslim Jamat, and that he was adhering to Islamic rules and values. The petitioner’s conversion is solely acknowledged by this document, which merely notes that the petitioner has converted to Islam.
[U Akbar Ali v The State of Tamil Nadu and another]. [1]
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
The petitioner and his family members belonged to the Most Backward Class and were Hindus {De-Notified Community (DNC] }. They converted to Islam in 2008, and the petitioner was also given a community certificate stating that he is a member of the Labbais community. The group is listed as one of the Backward Classes (Muslims).
But In 2018, TNPSC conducted direct recruitment to the posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination – II (Group-II Services) . however the petitioner was not selected in final selection list. He learned that his lack of selection was due to TNPSC treating him under the “General” category rather than the “Backward Class (Muslim)” category.
Before the high court, the petitioner’s lawyer challenged the TNPSC’s decision, arguing that the petitioner belonged to Backward Classes [Muslims] and in Tamil Nadu Muslims are also recognized as belonging to Backward Class, so he should be regarded as a member of the Backward Class community.
The petitioner claimed that Article 25 of the Indian Constitution recognizes the freedom of conscience and allows for the exercise of any religion. When the petitioner embraced islam, he was merely exercising his fundamental right. He benefited from the De-Notified Community (DNC] Of tamil nadu status before conversion and some Muslims are classified as being members of the Backward Class in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, it is appropriate to treat the petitioner as a member of the Backward Class community .
however Justice Swaminathan referred to G.Michael v. S.Venkateswaran (1952)
in this case court held that When a member of a caste or sub-caste converts to Islam, they no longer count as caste members, His status in Muslim society is no longer based on the caste he belonged to before to his conversion; instead, he becomes just a Mussalman.
This decision of the Madras High Court was also approvingly cited in K.P.Manu v. Scrutiny Committee (2015).
According to Justice Swaminathan, not all Muslims in Tamil Nadu have been recognized as belonging to the backward class. He emphasized that in Tamil Nadu, only a certain communities are classified as “backward classes,” in Muslims.
Justice Swaminathan also referred to the case of Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi (1984) According to the ruling a Hindu’s caste is mostly determined by birth, and if a Hindu converts to Christianity or in any other religion that doesn’t recognize caste, they effectively lose their caste. The original caste will go under the state of eclipse, but as soon as a person returns to their original faith, the eclipse ends and the caste returns .
Furthermore, he emphasized that when the petitioner converted to Islam, the certificate provided by the Kazi of Tamil Nadu Government just said that the petitioner has converted to Islam and nothing further.
Then how can a revenue body of a secular government can fix the converted individual in a particular slot or pigeon-hole when the Kazi does not proclaim that the convertee is to be treated as belonging to the group of Labbais,” he said.
Justice Swaminathan cited four letters from the Tamil Nadu government that stated candidates who converted to Islam from other religions would only be taken into consideration under the “others category.” According to him, a government letter would rank higher than the certificate provided by the jurisdictional Deputy Tahsildar
Madras high court also stated that this hierarchy of laws was given by The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.according to the theory of the eminent positivist jurist Kelsen (The Pure Theory of Law). It should be noted that every legal system has a hierarchy of laws, and that whenever there is a conflict between a rule in a higher layer of this hierarchy and a rule in a lower layer, the rule in the higher layer will prevail.
In our country this hierarchy is as follows:
1) The Constitution of India;
2) The Statutory Law, which may be either Parliamentary Law or Law made by the State Legislature;
3) Delegated or subordinate legislation, which may be in the form of rules made under the Act, regulations made under the Act, etc.;
4) Administrative orders or executive instructions without any statutory backing.”
Applying the hierarchy principle, it is clear that a government letter will rank higher than the certificate given by the jurisdictional Deputy Tahsildar. In fact, the jurisdictional Deputy Tahsildar had broken the terms of the government letters that bind him by acting improperly. Therefore, the TMPSC must discard any community certificates that were granted in violation of government directives. Applying the Ispat Industries Ltd. ratio in a respectful manner, Justice Swaminathan referred that the following letters will take priority over any community certificates that are given in violation of them.
He concluded, “I hold that the letters mentioned above will prevail over any community certificate issued in breach thereof“.
Justice Swaminathan also referred to the case of M.K.Muzibur Ragman vs. UOI and ors. When a same issue was brought up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned Special Government Pleader and the knowledgeable standing counsel speaking on behalf of the respondents both made this argument. That the case of ( M.K.Muzibur Ragman vs. UOI and ors. ) was closed since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was still hearing the case.
Whether such a person should be given the benefit of reservation even after conversion is a question that is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter, it is not for this Court to uphold the claim of the petitioner,” he said, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) acted improperly by considering him to be in the “General” category rather than the “Backward Class (Muslim)”.
Therefore, Justice Swaminathan refused to interfere with the approach adopted by the TMPSC and dismissed the case, asserting that when the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, it is not for the High Court to uphold the claim of the petitioner.
The High Court also stated that whether a person who has converted to another religion is eligible for community reservation is a matter before the Supreme Court. As a result, it will not be appropriate for the High Court to decide on the matter.
So the high court gives the decision in the favor of The TNPSC and declined to intervene and held that the decision of the commission was right.
Written by: Pradyuman, BA.LL.B. 4th Semester, RNB Global University.
0 Comments