The Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday rejecting claims for caste-based reservations by those who convert to other religions but still seek benefits is a much-needed step in preserving the integrity of India’s reservation policy. In a landmark decision, the Court upheld a Madras High Court order denying a Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate to a Christian-born woman claiming to be Hindu for a government job. This ruling reinforces a critical principle: reservations are meant to uplift historically marginalized communities, not to be exploited through religious opportunism. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan emphasized that using religion as a convenience to secure quotas undermines the constitutional framework. The case in question involved a woman, C. Selvarani, who was baptized as a Christian but sought an SC certificate under Hindu status. The Court found her claims disingenuous, stating that she continued to practice Christianity, attend church, and participate in Christian rituals, making her dual identity claim “untenable.”Justice Mahadevan aptly noted that religious conversion must stem from genuine belief, not as a tool to manipulate policy. “If the purpose of conversion is merely to derive reservation benefits without actual belief in the other religion, it cannot be permitted,” he wrote. This distinction is crucial. Allowing such practices would defeat the very ethos of reservations, designed to address systemic social inequality.
While this verdict is specific, a larger debate looms over whether Dalit converts to Christianity and Islam should qualify for SC benefits. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, limits SC status to Hindus, with later amendments extending it to Sikhs and Buddhists. However, demands to include Dalit Christians and Muslims persist, citing ongoing discrimination despite conversion. In 2007, the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission recommended extending SC status to Dalit converts. Yet, the essence of reservations lies in addressing caste-based discrimination entrenched in Hindu society. The Court’s cautious approach highlights the need to preserve this foundational purpose. Selvarani’s case exemplifies how fraudulent claims threaten the social justice framework. Despite evidence of her Christian upbringing and baptism shortly after birth, she argued that her affinity to Hinduism entitled her to SC benefits. However, official reports confirmed her consistent Christian identity, undermining her case. The Court rightly dismissed her appeal, emphasizing that granting SC status based on opportunistic claims constitutes “fraud on the Constitution.”
Such cases not only distort the intent of reservations but also deprive genuine beneficiaries of opportunities. The reservation system, though often debated, remains essential to leveling the playing field for marginalized communities. Misusing it dilutes its impact and fuels public resentment, undermining social cohesion. The verdict should prompt policymakers to tighten safeguards against such exploitation. Clearer guidelines and stricter verification processes are needed to ensure that only those who genuinely meet the criteria benefit from reservations. Additionally, the ongoing constitutional debate over religion-based eligibility must be resolved in a way that preserves the policy’s integrity. The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a strong message: reservations are not a loophole to be exploited. Upholding the spirit of social justice requires vigilance against fraudulent claims. It’s time for policymakers and society alike to act decisively to protect this vital tool for equity. Ending the misuse of reservations isn’t just a legal imperative—it’s a moral one.