Akbar Ali vs State of Tamil Nadu case: Caste discrimination has become important on the human rights agenda under the guise of “discrimination based on work and descent” (DWD), under Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
However, to overcome the intricacies of caste discrimination, reservation is provided to the vulnerable class. On the contrary, the efficacy of the reservation policy is often debated, as the real beneficiaries are often not benefited by the implementation of the policy
In tune with the debate over identifying the true beneficiaries of the reservation policy, the question of whether the benefits of reservation should be given to the people even after conversion is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, a Single Bench of the Madras High Court recently reiterated that a person is not permitted to retain his caste after conversion.
Also read: 2022, Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India: Supreme Court dictum on mandatory Covid vaccination
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, gave a progressive judgement whereby the court held that a person who has converted to another religion cannot claim the benefits of his community before conversion unless it is expressly granted by the state.
Factual Background: Convert seeks caste for reservation
In the case of U. Akbar Ali vs State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner and his family members belonged to the Most Backward Class (DNC) of the Hindu community. In the year 2008, they converted to Islam. The petitioner changed his name and also got it notified in the gazette. Later in 2015, he applied for a post in Tamil Nadu PCS, and he was not given the benefit of reservation. Questioning the said stand taken by TNPSC, the present writ petition has been filed.
Contention of the petitioner
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Article 25 of the Constitution recognises freedom of conscience. Thereby, one is free to profess any religion and opt for conversion as well.
Therefore, the petitioner was only exercising his fundamental right when he converted to Islam. He further contended that before conversion, he enjoyed the status of belonging to MBC (DNC). Since, in the state of Tamil Nadu, the Muslims are recognised as being of the Backward Class, the petitioner should therefore be considered as belonging to the Backward Class Community.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:
- Ayesha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu;
- Sumaiya Parveen v. The Secretary, TNPSC;
- The Teachers Recruitment Board, DPI Campus, Chennai v. K. Bridda Beevi;
- Fathima Begam v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department;
- M.U.Aariffaa v. The Secretary to the Government, Chennai
Dictum: Caste cannot be carried after Conversion
The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that the issue has to be approached from another angle and not through the lens of whether or not Muslims have been recognised as belonging to the Backward Class in Tamil Nadu.
The court held that the certificate declaring the petitioner’s conversion only states that the petitioner has become a Muslim and nothing more. Therefore, relying on the G. Michael judgement of the same court, the Bench held that when a Hindu gets converted to Islam, he just becomes a Muslim, and his place in Muslim society is not determined by the caste to which he belonged before his conversion.
The court further reprimanded the revenue authority for attributing the petitioner to his former caste when the Kazi does not declare the same. The court questioned how a secular government can fix the converted individual in the pigeon-hole of his caste when such a bifurcation does not exist.
Also read: Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India – When Supreme Court blew the lid off Indian secularists
HC snatched class privileges from the converts
The court cited the observation in the S. Ruhaiyah Begum judgement and held that if a Hindu belonging to the “others category” gets converted to Islam and gets reservation benefits; it would defeat the very purpose of social justice. Further, these clever stratagems would become the norm to convert and avail reservation benefits.
Therefore, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition, reiterated the S. Yasmine verdict, and observed that a person cannot carry his community of birth even after conversion.
The judgement is in support of judiciary’s previous stance that the case gets eclipsed after conversion and caste association revives only after re-conversion to the Hindu-fold of life. However, the question of whether such a person would get the benefits of reservation is for the Apex Court to decide, as the matter is subjudice before it for adjudication.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
Also Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwHnnMudeNI
