The ruling came in response to a plea challenging the Madras High Court's decision to deny a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate to C. Selvarani, a Christian woman who claimed to have converted to Hinduism to qualify for reservation benefits.

A bench consisting of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan ruled that awarding the SC status to a Christian who claimed to be Hindu for the purpose of obtaining a government job would defeat the very object of the reservation policy.

The bench stated that genuine conversion to a different religion should be motivated by sincere belief, not for personal gain. “One converts to a different religion, when he/she is genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts. However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation," Live Law quoted the bench's statement.

Selvarani had challenged the January 24, 2023 order of the Madras High Court, which dismissed her writ petition for reservation. Selvarani, who was born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, argued that she belonged to the Valluvan caste, which falls within the ambit of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, and was entitled to reservation under the Adi Dravida quota. 

She argued that right from birth, she had an affinity for professing Hinduism and was treated as a part of the SC community throughout her educational years. She claimed that her transfer certificates also affirmed her communal status as such and also pointed to her father’s and brother’s SC certificates as proof of her eligibility. 

The bench, however, observed that Selvarani, despite claiming to be a Hindu, continued to practice Christianity. Based on the report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, after a detailed enquiry and through the documentary evidence collected, the court concluded that Selvatani’s dual claim was untenable.

“The field verification clearly revealed the registration of the marriage of the parents of the appellant under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the baptism of the appellant and her brother and also the fact that they had been regularly attending the church… There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” The Indian Express quoted the court’s ruling.

The bench pointed out that Selvarani's father had converted to Christianity, and she was baptized in 1991, with her brother baptized in 1989. The court found that Selvarani still attended church and had provided insufficient evidence to show a genuine reconversion to Hinduism.

“In the instant case, the evidence presented clearly demonstrates that the appellant professes Christianity and actively practices the faith by attending church regularly. Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for Scheduled Caste community certificate for the purpose of employment. Such a dual claim made by her is untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism,” The Wire quoted the bench’s statement.

The judgment also touched on the ongoing debate regarding the constitutional validity of using religion as a criterion for Scheduled Caste status. Currently, only Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists are eligible for SC benefits under the 1950 Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order. However, there are ongoing petitions seeking reservation for Dalit converts to Christianity and Islam.

The court's ruling has sparked further discussions on whether the law should extend to Dalit Christians and Muslims, with some arguing for a broader interpretation of the reservation policy.