Explained | The Scheduled Caste classification and the religion bar: What has the Supreme Court ruled?

The story so far: The Supreme Court of India ruled on Tuesday (March 24, 2026) that a Pastor from the Madiga community in Andhra Pradesh could not claim to be a member of a Scheduled Caste as he had converted to a religion that was not covered under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which the court says imposes a religion bar that is “absolute”.

The Supreme Court upheld an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision that ruled the same in an alleged case of atrocity, where the Pastor reported that he was assaulted and threatened by some members of his village in Guntur district while he was holding a Sunday prayer at a resident’s home. The accused had approached the High Court with the contention that the Pastor, Chinthada Anand, could not claim Scheduled Caste status because he had converted faiths, and so provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could not be applicable in the case. Mr. Anand approached the Supreme Court, which upheld this decision of the High Court.

Can a person of Christian faith be Scheduled Caste?

In the judgement, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan laid down that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, clearly defines the parameters under which Scheduled Castes in the country are to be identified. This order includes a Clause that says, “no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist] religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”

The judgement holds that this bar on religion imposed by the Const. (SC) Order was an “absolute” one without any exceptions. In interpreting this bar on religion, the Supreme Court has said that the term “profess” here “connotes to publicly declare or practice a religion. The essence of the word lies in the open avowal of one’s religious beliefs in a manner discernible to the public at large. It is not merely a question of personal belief or private conviction, but requires an outward manifestation of one’s faith”.

In the case it was looking at, the Court noted in its March 24 judgement that the appellant “professes Christianity”, which was not mentioned in the Constitution Order. “Irrespective of the appellant’s caste of origin, he cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste,” the court held, adding, “Conversion to any religion not specified in Clause 3 results in immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status from the moment of conversion regardless of birth.”

Further, the court went on to say that “Christianity, by its very theological foundation, does not recognize or incorporate the institution of caste.” The court held that the moment one ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Caste by virtue of converting faiths, “the loss of such status carries with it the automatic and immediate termination of all eligibility for statutory benefits, protections, reservations, preferences and entitlements that are predicated upon or flow from such membership”, which include protections under the SC/ST Act.

Even though Mr. Anand argued that he had a caste certificate showing he belonged to the Madiga community, which is designated as a Scheduled Caste, the Supreme Court said, “Mere production of a certificate cannot override the admitted fact that the appellant is a practising Christian”, saying, “There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the appellant reconverted to Hinduism or that the community accepted him back.”

Is this question new? What is the Centre’s position on this?

The Supreme Court has been dealing with the question of Scheduled Caste status for people historically belonging to Dalit communities who have converted to Islam or Christianity over time. A petition to accord Scheduled Caste status for Dalit Christians and Muslims was filed in 2004, which continues to be heard today.

While hearing these matters, through the years, the petitioners have argued that several communities across the country had historically belonged to the Scheduled Caste groups but had, over time, converted to faiths like Christianity and Islam. Even though their choice of faith may have been led by the wish to be freed of their caste, the petitioners have argued that in India, caste had entered faiths like Christianity and Islam as well. They have cited government-commissioned reports from the first decade of the 21st Century supporting their position that Dalit Muslims and Christians should be accorded Scheduled Caste status.

Meanwhile, the Union government has relied on the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, and argued that Dalit Muslims and Christians should continue to be excluded because of the “foreign origin” of these faiths as opposed to Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism.

The petitioners have argued, however, that the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, had been amended over the years, first to broadly include Sikhism in the 1950s and then to include Buddhism in 1990, in response to a large number of people in certain parts of the country turning to Buddhism, heeding Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s call.

In October 2022, the Centre constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan to examine the issue of whether Scheduled Caste status can be accorded to converts to Islam and Christianity. This Commission’s deadline, after several extensions, is set to arrive in April this year.

What about people who have ‘reconverted’ to Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism?

Even as the Centre’s Commission of Inquiry is yet to submit its report, pending which the Supreme Court Bench hearing these matters will proceed, the Bench of Justices Mishra and Manmohan, on March 24, laid down the threshold for what counts as “reconversion”, what is the burden of proof for this and who this burden must fall upon.

In the March 24 judgement, the Supreme Court noted that if a person of Scheduled Caste origin claimed that they had “reconverted” to any of the faiths mentioned in the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, three specific conditions must be met “cumulatively and conclusively”. These are: the person must be able to prove that they “originally belonged” to a Scheduled Caste group, there must be “credible and unimpeachable evidence of bona fide reconversion to the original religion”, and “acceptance and assimilation by members of the original caste and concerned community” must be evidenced.

In laying down these conditions, the top court said, “All the above three conditions are mandatory and cumulative. The burden of proving reconversion lies entirely on the claimant, to be proven through unimpeachable evidence.”

In elaborating on the proof of “reconversion”, the Supreme Court said that this should be accompanied by “complete and unequivocal renunciation of the religion to which conversion had taken place, total dissociation therefrom, and actual adoption and observance of the customs, usages, practices, rituals, and religious obligations of the original caste”. Further, the court said, “Mere self-proclamation is insufficient i.e., the community must recognize and accept the person as one of their own.”

What about the Scheduled Tribes?

While the Supreme Court has held that the religion bar for the Scheduled Castes was “absolute”, for the Scheduled Tribe category, there was no such religion-based exclusion prescribed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. “The determination of Scheduled Tribe status, therefore, cannot rest on conversion alone, but must turn on whether the claimant continues to possess and is recognised for the essential attributes of tribal identity, including customary practices, social organisation, community life, and acceptance by the concerned tribal community,” the court held. 

“Where conversion or subsequent conduct results in a complete severance from the tribal way of life and loss of community recognition, the foundational basis for Scheduled Tribes status will stand eroded. Conversely, where such attributes demonstrably subsist or are genuinely re-established and accepted by the tribal community, the claim cannot be rejected mechanically. The assessment in such cases is necessarily fact-specific and is left to the competent authority to decide in accordance with Constitutional principles,” the top court said.

The absence of a religious restriction for STs is seen in how hundreds of ST communities in different parts of the country are seen professing Christianity, Islam, and several other indigenous faiths, such as Sarnaism. And while there are States like Nagaland or regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where entire ST communities may have, over time, converted to Islam or Christianity, there are also States like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh, where there has been a rise of Adivasi movements insisting that ST communities that had converted to faiths other than indigenous ones should be disentitled from getting statutory benefits meant for STs.