NEW DELHI, July 10, 2026: The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court judgment that struck down a 2024 government order extending reservation benefits under the Backward Class Muslim (BCM) category to certain individuals who converted to Islam.
In a Special Leave Petition (SLP), the state has sought to overturn the High Court’s June 2026 ruling, arguing that its March 2024 Government Order was legally valid. The High Court had held that conversion to Islam alone does not automatically entitle a person to reservation benefits available to the state’s notified Backward Class Muslim communities.
The dispute stems from a petition filed by Sameer Ahamed N., formerly known as Paramasivam, a resident of Thoothukudi district.
Born into a Hindu family, Sameer converted to Islam in 2015 and formally changed his name through a government gazette notification. He later applied for a community certificate under the Muslim Labbai (Lebbai) category, one of the seven Muslim communities recognised as Backward Class Muslims in Tamil Nadu.
His application was rejected by the local Tahsildar, prompting him to challenge the decision before the Madras High Court.
During the proceedings, the court examined not only his individual case but also the broader validity of the Tamil Nadu government’s 2024 Government Order.
What the 2024 Government Order Provided
The March 2024 Government Order allowed certain individuals belonging to Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Communities (DNC), and Scheduled Castes (SC) who converted to Islam to be considered under the Backward Class Muslim (BCM) reservation category, provided they were affiliated with one of the state’s seven recognised Muslim communities.
The state argued that the order was intended to address the social and educational backwardness of eligible converts within Tamil Nadu’s reservation framework.
Madras High Court Strikes Down the Order
A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji declared the Government Order unconstitutional.
The court held that a person’s previous caste identity cannot automatically be carried into a new religion for the purpose of claiming reservation benefits under a different notified community. The judges observed that after conversion to Islam, an individual becomes a member of the Muslim faith and cannot claim Backward Class Muslim status solely because of the act of conversion.
The High Court further expressed concern that the Government Order could be interpreted as creating an incentive for religious conversion, which it said was inconsistent with established constitutional principles and judicial precedents.
Tamil Nadu Challenges the Verdict
The Tamil Nadu government has now challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.
Its Special Leave Petition names Sameer Ahamed N., along with the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Tahsildar concerned, as respondents.
The respondents have already filed caveats before the Supreme Court, ensuring that they will be heard before any interim relief is granted by the court.
Why the Case Matters
The appeal raises significant constitutional questions about the relationship between religious conversion, caste identity, social backwardness, and reservation policy.
At the heart of the dispute is whether a person who converts to Islam can qualify for reservation benefits under the state’s recognised Backward Class Muslim categories, and if so, under what conditions.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling is expected to provide important guidance not only for Tamil Nadu but also for other states grappling with similar questions involving reservation policies and religious conversion.
Given the constitutional issues involved, the judgment could have implications extending well beyond Tamil Nadu, potentially influencing future debates on affirmative action, social justice, and the legal status of religious converts across India.
