On June 25, a Division Bench of the Madras high court comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P.B. Balaji has declared Government Order (Miscellaneous) No. 31 dated March 9, 2024, issued by the Tamil Nadu government, unconstitutional. The order, which the state government has appealed in Supreme Court, permitted persons belonging to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes (MBC), De-notified Communities (DNC) and Scheduled Castes who converted to Islam to obtain community certificates under the Backward Class (Muslim) category.What does the verdict say?Sameer Ahamed (formerly Paramasivam) converted to Islam in 2015 and sought a community certificate identifying him as “Muslim Labbai.” The tehsildar rejected his application on the ground that conversion to Islam did not, by itself, confer membership in a recognised Muslim community. While these proceedings were ongoing, the Tamil Nadu government issued order No. 31, extending the 3.5% Muslim Backward Classes reservation to converts from Backward Classes and MBC, DNC and Scheduled Caste communities. The petitioner’s claim consequently came to rest on the validity of this order.The Division Bench nevertheless struck down the Government Order by relying on G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran (1952), which held that a convert to Islam becomes “just a Mussalmaan” and ceases to retain caste identity. It further held that communities such as Labbai, Rowther, Marakkayar, Dekkani, Sheikh and Syed are birth-based social groups and cannot be entered merely through conversion.Although the bench acknowledged social stratification among Muslims, it concluded that conversion alone could not confer membership in a notified Backward Class Muslim community. It therefore held the Government Order was unconstitutional.A brief legal timelineIn 1994, the Tamil Nadu government enacted the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act to notify socially and educationally backward communities. In 2007, the state introduced a separate 3.5% internal quota for Backward Class Christians and Muslims within the 30% Backward Classes reservation. The quota for Christians was withdrawn in 2008, while seven Backward Class Muslim communities were formally notified.In M.U. Aariffaa v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014), the high court held that a person from a Hindu Backward Class, MBC or Scheduled Caste community who had genuinely converted to Islam and joined a notified Muslim community could be recognised as Backward Class Muslim.A contrary view emerged in U. Akbar Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022), where the single judge, Justice G.R. Swaminathan, held that a Hindu MBC or DNC convert to Islam could not retain the former caste identity and must be treated under the general category.Also read: Debunking Myths Around Reservations for Dalit Muslims and ChristiansThe Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission recommended recognition of converts from Backward Classes, MBC, DNC and Scheduled Caste communities under the seven notified Backward Class-Muslim communities. This recommendation, which forms the backdrop to the Sameer Ahamed case, led the state government to issue order No. 31 in 2024.In TNPSC v. S. Sumaiya Parveen (October 30, 2025), a Division Bench upheld this order as a clarification of the existing law and directed the appointment of the petitioner through a supernumerary post.However, in June 2026, while hearing the Sameer Ahamed case, a different Division Bench struck down this government order and upheld the rejection of his caste certificate. The two decisions are therefore in direct conflict: Sumaiya Parveen treated the government order as a lawful clarification, while Sameer Ahamed regarded it as an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the G. Michael judgment.Islamic theology and social reality in IndiaIslam rejects caste distinctions and affirms the equality of all believers before God. This theological commitment is both well-established and universally acknowledged within Islamic doctrine. However, the historical development of Islam in South Asia followed a different trajectory.As Islam spread across the Indian subcontinent, it inevitably encountered a deeply entrenched caste-based social order. Many aspects of caste gradually became embedded within South Asian Muslim societies. This sociological reality has been extensively documented by the Mandal Commission and later reaffirmed by the Sachar Committee, both of which recognised that caste-like stratification continues to exist among Indian Muslims.The Sachar Committee found that Indian Muslims are commonly grouped into three social categories: Ashrafs, associated with foreign lineages or elite-caste converts; Ajlafs, comprising backward occupational communities, including Labbais and Rowthers; and Arzals, descended from communities historically subjected to untouchability and still facing severe exclusion.Whether these classifications possess religious legitimacy is immaterial to the constitutional inquiry. They operate as social realities that govern marriage, occupation, status and community acceptance. Conversion may change a person’s religious identity but it does not erase inherited disadvantages. A Dalit or backward-class convert does not acquire land, education or social capital as an immediate outcome of that decision. Therefore, theological equality and sociological inequality must be distinguished in this debate.The Kaka Kalelkar and Mandal commissionsThe recognition of backward communities among Muslims is not recent. The First Backward Classes Commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, submitted its report in 1955 and identified 2,399 socially and educationally backward castes and communities, including 837 classified as “most backward.” Importantly, its inquiry extended beyond Hindu society to include backward Muslim communities, marking the first official recognition of these communities in independent India.Also read: SC: ‘Religious Conversion Solely to Seek Reservation Akin to Fraud on the Constitution’The Mandal Commission reaffirmed this position in 1980. Using eleven social, educational and economic indicators, it identified 3,743 communities as Other Backward Classes (OBC) and recognised that caste-like stratification existed among Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. Drawing on the 1931 Census and nationwide field surveys, it listed at least eighty-two backward Muslim communities.The Sachar committee report points out that although Islam is doctrinally egalitarian, the commission rejected both religion and poverty as exclusive criteria. Instead, it adopted a pragmatic approach by identifying two broad categories of backward Muslims: Arzals, comprising the formerly “untouchable” communities whose members converted to non-Hindu religions, and Ajlafs, consisting of hereditary occupational groups whose Hindu counterparts were already recognised as OBCs.Reassessing the Madras high court’s judgmentThe constitution does not grant reservation on the basis of religion. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) refer explicitly to “socially and educationally backward classes”. In Indra Sawhney, the Supreme Court observed that “a caste can be and quite often is a social class in India” and recognised caste-like backward groups among Muslims, Christians and Sikhs.Social classification must therefore rest not on religious doctrine but on sociological indicators of actual educational and social backwardness. The relevant constitutional inquiry is not whether Islam recognises caste but whether backwardness persists after conversion. The Sameer Ahamed judgment, however, overlooks this distinction. If a convert identifies with the Labbai community through lifestyle, kinship and social relations, there should be no legal impediment to recognising that social affiliation.The Aariffaa judgment also recognises the convert’s discretion to choose the sect to which they wish to belong, subject to the factual circumstances surrounding such identification.Equally concerning is the bench’s treatment of precedent. In Sameer Ahamed (paragraph 8), the Division Bench held that since the G. Michael judgment had declared that a convert to Islam becomes “just a Mussalman,” the state could not recognise such converts as belonging to any of the seven Backward Class Muslim communities. It viewed Government Order No. 31 as an attempt to undermine the binding effect of G. Michael.This reasoning, however, overlooks the later Division Bench decision in TNPSC v. Sumaiya Parveen (2025), which held that order No. 31 was merely clarificatory and created no new entitlement. The executive did not override judicial precedent; it clarified the existing statutory position under Section 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.The conflict, therefore, was between competing judicial interpretations, not between the executive and the judiciary. Also, the Sameer Ahamed judgment raises a policy question about placing converts from the backward classes, MBC, DNC and Scheduled Caste communities within a single category.The Sachar Committee found that Arzals face deeper exclusion than Ajlafs and suggested Scheduled Caste status or a separate MBC category. However, such classification requires legislative or executive action based on social data and was not relevant to deciding the petitioner’s individual claim.The constitutional basis of reservation lies not in theology but in lived social and educational backwardness. The question should not have been whether Islam doctrinally recognises caste but whether caste-like exclusion continues after conversion. Evidence gathered by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, the Mandal Commission and the Sachar Committee answers this in the affirmative.By privileging religious doctrine over sociological reality, the Madras high court risks converting constitutional adjudication into theological interpretation. Constitutional rights cannot depend on how a religion ideally imagines society, but on how society actually operates. If reservation seeks to remedy historical and continuing exclusion, the focus must remain on measurable backwardness, not doctrinal equality.The Sameer Ahamed judgment thus leaves unresolved a fundamental question: should affirmative action be interpreted through religious ideals or the social realities Articles 15(4) and 16(4) were enacted to address? The issue may ultimately require reconsideration by a larger bench or the Supreme Court. Until then, the guiding principle must remain clear: constitutional protection against backwardness cannot be denied merely because religious doctrine refuses to acknowledge the social hierarchy that persists in practice.Ragul Sivasubramanian is a research scholar from Pondicherry University. He was formerly president of Ambedkar students’ Association (ASA-PU).