E-Paper
Religious conversion results in loss of Scheduled Caste status: Supreme Court
The court said a person professing a faith other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism cannot claim the constitutional protections available to Scheduled Castes
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that conversion to Christianity and other religions results in the loss of Scheduled Caste (SC) status, holding that a person who professes a faith other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism cannot claim the constitutional protections available to members of SC.
Upholding an Andhra Pradesh high court judgment, the bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan said once an individual voluntarily converts and actively practices another faith, the legal entitlements tied to SC identity, including protection under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cease to apply.
It endorsed the high court’s reasoning that the constitutional scheme under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, restricts the SC status to specified religions, and that conversion beyond this framework automatically disqualifies a person from claiming such status. The court underscored that the determinative factor is the religion professed at the time of the incident, not merely the existence of a caste certificate.
The ruling arose from a case involving a pastor from Andhra Pradesh who invoked the SC/ST Act, alleging assault and caste-based abuse by certain individuals in his village. The accused challenged the proceedings on the ground that the complainant, Chinthada Anand, had converted to Christianity and was actively functioning as a pastor, thereby disentitling him from invoking protections meant exclusively for the SC.
The Supreme Court noted that the facts on record left little room for doubt. The petitioner had not claimed any reconversion to his original faith nor any re-acceptance into his caste community. On the contrary, evidence showed that he had been practising Christianity for over a decade and regularly conducting prayer meetings as a pastor. The bench observed that these “concurrent facts” clearly established that he continued to profess Christianity at the time of the alleged incident, making him ineligible for the SC status and the protections flowing from it.
The decision effectively endorses the Andhra Pradesh high court’s April 30, 2025, ruling delivered by Justice N Harinath, which had quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under the SC/ST Act. The high court held that the caste system is alien to Christianity and that a person who has voluntarily converted cannot seek the benefit of a law designed to address caste-based discrimination within the Hindu social structure and its legally recognised extensions.
The high court rejected the argument that the continued possession of a caste certificate entitled the complainant to protection under the SC/ST Act. It clarified that the validity or cancellation of such a certificate is a separate administrative issue to be dealt with under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. Mere non-cancellation, it held, does not revive or sustain eligibility once conversion has taken place.
The case traces back to a 2021 complaint filed by Anand from Guntur district, who alleged that certain individuals opposed his evangelical activities, assaulted him, and used caste-based slurs. Based on his complaint, police registered offences under provisions of the SC/ST Act as well as the Indian Penal Code and filed a charge sheet.
One of the accused, Akkala Rami Reddy, approached the high court seeking quashing of the case, arguing that the invocation of the SC/ST Act was legally untenable given the complainant’s admitted conversion.
Agreeing with this contention, the high court held that the protective framework of the SC/ST Act is intended specifically for members of the SCs and Scheduled Tribes, and cannot be extended to those who have chosen to exit that social and legal category by converting to another religion. It observed that allowing such claims would amount to a misuse of the statute.
