Conversion Conundrum

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment that underscores the complexities surrounding caste-based reservations and the integrity of religious identity in a secular state. By upholding the denial of a Scheduled Caste certificate to a woman born Christian but claiming Hindu identity for employment benefits, the Court has drawn a decisive line between genuine faith and opportunistic conversions.

By denying a SC certificate to C. Selvarani—a woman born Christian who claimed Hindu identity for employment benefits—the Court has underscored the principle that faith must be genuine, not a matter of convenience.

At the crux of the case was Selvarani’s assertion that, despite being baptized as a Christian shortly after birth and actively practicing Christianity, she was entitled to SC reservation benefits under the Adi Dravida quota. She argued that her family belonged to the Valluvan caste and claimed to have consistently professed Hinduism. However, the Court, citing detailed field verification, found her claim untenable. Evidence of her consistent adherence to Christian practices, including regular church attendance and her baptism records, contradicted her professed Hindu identity.

The Court ruled that extending reservation benefits to those who manipulate religious identities for personal gain undermined the social ethos of the policy of reservation and constituted a “fraud on Constitution.”

The Court also provided guidelines on what constitutes genuine reconversion, such as adopting procedures like those of the Arya Samaj or making public declarations of faith.

This ruling arrives amid a broader debate on whether SC reservations should extend to Dalit Christians and Muslims. The 1950 Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order confines SC status to Hindus, later expanded to include Sikhs and Buddhists. Critics argue that this exclusion perpetuates discrimination within Christian and Muslim communities, where caste-based inequities still persist. Proponents of the current framework contend that extending reservations would dilute the benefits intended for historically marginalized Hindu castes. The 2007 Ranganath Mishra Commission report recommended extending SC quotas to Dalit Christians and Muslims, but the issue remains in controversy.

The Court’s decision reinforces a foundational principle: caste-based reservations are meant to redress historical and systemic injustices, not to be exploited through opportunistic claims. This judgment highlights the importance of authentic faith practices and sets a precedent for scrutinizing dubious claims of conversion or reconversion. While the debate over the intersection of caste, religion and affirmative action is far from over, the Court’s judgment reflects the fine balance India must maintain as a secular state committed to social justice. Faith must be a matter of conviction, not convenience. At a time when identity politics frequently intersects with constitutional rights, this decision serves as a reminder of the need for integrity in both personal claims and public policies.