Read: 60 Years Of Constitutional Rights Denied To 20 Millions Indian Dalit Christians | SabrangIndia

Can a Dalit not be a Christian or Muslim? Conversely, even after conversion out of caste-ridden Hinduism, is the discrimination suffered by caste be suffered by one who opts otherwise for Christianity or Islam?

Despite several attempts by the executive through Orders and Commissions to overturn once and for all, the discriminatory Presidential Order of 1950, Courts continue to affirm its limited understanding.

The recent, Akkala Rami Reddy judgement delivered by the AP high court spotlights this enduring debate on SC status for religious converts. The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Akkala Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh has reignited a critical legal and social debate: Should Scheduled Caste (SC) status, with its attendant protections and affirmative action benefits, be denied to individuals solely based on their conversion to religions like Christianity or Islam, even if they continue to face caste-based discrimination? Overwhelming social scientific evidence and testimony led to the official admission in the Ranganath Mishra Commission Report (2007) that Christian and Muslim Dalits suffer the same forms of discrimination as their Hindu counterparts.

The judgment, which quashed SC/ST Act proceedings against the petitioners based on the complainant Pastor’s conversion to Christianity, underscores the judiciary’s current adherence to the 1950 Presidential Order.[1]

What is the 1950 Presidential Order?

The Presidential Orders regarding the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. These orders were issued by the President of India under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, which define who would be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with respect to any State or Union Territory. More about the detailed process can be read here.

So, for a caste to be claiming the SC status, it has to be included the Constitution Order, 1950. The order states as follows in Paragraph 3:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, 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.”

This means, only people from the religions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs can be members of scheduled castes.

The Akkala Rami Reddy ruling: Conversion and ineligibility under SC/ST Act

In Akkala Rami Reddy, the AP High Court, on April 30, 2025, declared that the complainant, who had been working as a Pastor for approximately ten years, could not invoke the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court reasoned that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, explicitly states that no person professing a religion different from Hinduism (later amended to include Sikhism and Buddhism) shall be deemed a member of a Scheduled Caste. The Court held that an individual converted to Christianity ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Caste and thus cannot claim the protections of the SC/ST Act. “The 2nd respondent has ceased to be a Member of the Scheduled Caste Community, the day he had converted into Christianity,” the judgment firmly stated.

The 1950 Order: A discriminatory relic?

At the heart of this recurring issue is Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Initially restricting SC status to Hindus, it was later amended to include Sikhs (1956) and Buddhists (1990).

The judgement presumes that caste discrimination vanishes upon conversion to egalitarian religions like Christianity or Islam. This exclusion establishes religion as the primary determinant for SC status, overlooking the socio-economic realities of continued caste-based oppression.

Judgement not a deviation but a rule

While the social realities of India would make one see the caste discrimination faced by people belonging to religions other than Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist—the courts have consistently taken a position that adheres to the literal law i.e., the Constitutional Order, 1950.

In one of the earlier cases, the Madras High Court in G. Michael v. S. Venkateswaran (1951), noted that while Christianity and Islam do not recognize caste systems, there were exceptions, particularly in South India, where members of lower castes converted to Christianity but were still considered members of their original caste by other caste members. However, the general rule established was that conversion operates as an expulsion from the caste, meaning a convert ceases to have any caste.[2]

Building on this, in S. Rajagopal v. C. M. Armugam (1968), the Supreme Court held that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida Hindu in this case) who converted to Christianity lost their caste membership.[3] The Court found that the Christian religion does not recognize caste classifications, treating all Christians as equals. While the appellant claimed to have later reconverted to Hinduism and was professing Hindu religion by the time of the election, the Court stated that mere reconversion is not sufficient to automatically resume membership of the previous caste. It emphasized that acceptance by the caste in general as a member after reconversion is required, based on the principle that the caste itself is the supreme judge in matters affecting its composition.[4] Since the appellant had not provided evidence of such acceptance, his claim to SC status was rejected.

The principles from S. Rajagopal were considered in Principal, Guntur Medical College, v. Y. Mohan Rao (1976). This case involved a person born to parents who had converted from Hindu SC to Christianity, who later reconverted to Hinduism. The Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, required a person to profess Hindu or Sikh religion at the relevant time to be deemed a member of a Scheduled Caste, not necessarily to be born into it. Regarding reconversion, the Court reasoned that a person born of Christian converts could become a member of the caste their parents belonged to before conversion if the members of that caste accept him as a member and admit him within the fold.[5] The caste’s acceptance is the key requirement.

Further developing the legal position, Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi (1983) extensively examined the effect of conversion and reconversion on caste status. The Supreme Court stated that conversion to Christianity or Islam involves loss of caste unless the new religion is liberal enough to permit the convertee to retain their caste or family laws. However, where the new religion does not accept the caste system, the loss of caste is complete. Introducing the doctrine of eclipse, the Court opined that when a person converts, the original caste remains under eclipse and automatically revives upon reconversion to the original religion during their lifetime. While acknowledging that acceptance by the community of the old order was previously considered a norm, the Court noted the difficulty and potential for exploitation in strictly insisting on this second condition in modern society.[6] It suggested that revival might occur by applying the doctrine of eclipse, though added a rider that this might be difficult if the conversion occurred several generations ago.[7]

Despite these verdicts, this one held to the contrary.
In 1984, The Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Anbalagan Vs. Devarajan AIR 1984 SC 411, said that “the practice of caste however irrational it may appear to our reason and however are repugnant it may appear to our moral and social sense, it so deep rooted in the India people that its mark does not seem to disappear on conversion to a different religion.”

However, more recently, in C. Selvarani v The Special Secretary Cum District (2024), the appellant, born Christian, claimed SC status based on her father’s background and her profession of Hinduism. The court noted evidence of her baptism shortly after birth, concluding she was a born Christian. It held that a person born Christian cannot be associated with any caste.[8] Further, upon conversion to Christianity, one loses her caste. While the appellant claimed to profess Hinduism, the court found the claim of reconversion disputed and noted the lack of positive acts or public declaration to evince such conversion, concluding she did not profess Hinduism. Therefore, in terms of the S.C. Order, 1964(The order for the Union Territory of Puducherry), she was not entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate as she did not profess Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism.

In summary, the courts have consistently held that professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism is a mandatory condition for being deemed a member of a Scheduled Caste under the relevant Presidential Orders. Conversion to other religions like Christianity or Islam generally results in the loss of the original caste status. While reconversion to Hinduism may allow for the regaining of caste membership, this often depends on acceptance by the caste community, although the doctrine of eclipse discussed in Kailash Sonkar suggests a potential revival upon genuine reconversion, noting the practical difficulties of insisting on community acceptance. Being born to Christian parents and subsequently claiming SC status after converting to Hinduism also hinges upon acceptance by the original caste group. Furthermore, proof of genuinely professing the specified religion and undertaking positive acts of conversion/reconversion can be crucial.

What runs contrary to this however is several Orders by the GOI’s Social Welfare Ministry and also Commissions appointed by successive governments at the Centre. Details of these may be read here.

The Issue with this judicial approach

This judicial stance, rooted in the interpretation and application of the 1950 Presidential Order, operates under the premise that caste, as a phenomenon warranting the specific provisions of Scheduled Caste status, is intrinsically linked to Hinduism (and later, Sikhism and Buddhism) and is shed upon conversion to faiths perceived as egalitarian, such as Christianity and Islam. However, a comprehensive understanding necessitates looking beyond this legally constructed silo to the complex sociological realities of caste and discrimination as they manifest across religious communities in India.

Contrary to the assumption embedded within the 1950 Order and upheld by the courts, historical and sociological research demonstrates that caste, or caste-like social stratification and discrimination, persists among Indian Christians and Muslims. While the nature and religious sanction of caste may differ significantly from its scripturally embedded form in Hinduism, its practical social manifestations – particularly the division between Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and non-Dalits, and practices like endogamy – are not confined by religious boundaries.

As B.R. Ambedkar incisively argued, while caste among Mohammedans and Sikhs might lack the conscious, religiously consecrated ties that bind Hindu castes, and breach of caste rules might not lead to formal excommunication in the same way, caste nonetheless exists as a social practice or “survival” within these communities. Its significance might not be as profound as in Hinduism where it is a sacred institution compelling segregation, yet its presence cannot be dismissed. The crucial distinction Ambedkar makes is the absence of religious dogma compelling isolation in non-Hindu faiths, unlike in Hinduism.^[9] However, the implication that caste is non-existent or irrelevant among converts is not what Ambedkar suggests; rather, its role and basis are different.

Expanding on this, scholar Rupa Viswanath highlights that conversion has historically not guaranteed freedom from caste identity or discrimination for Dalits. The fundamental distinction between Dalits and non-Dalits, rooted in historical hierarchies and social power dynamics, transcends religious identity in India.^[10] While acknowledging Hinduism’s unique theological rationale for caste, Viswanath argues that focusing solely on this theological difference is misplaced when analysing the persistence of caste structures. The practice of endogamy, a cornerstone of caste, is observed across religious lines. Furthermore, the social division and discrimination faced by Dalits often continue regardless of their conversion, perpetuated by both co-religionists (who may retain caste consciousness or practices) and members of other communities.

Historically, within Indian Christianity, debates among missionaries and Indian converts themselves reveal the complex relationship with caste. While some Protestant missionaries, according to Vishwanath, advocated for the immediate abandonment of caste upon conversion due to its perceived link to Hinduism, others, including many high-caste Indian Christians, viewed caste as a purely civil or social distinction separable from religion, thus justifying its continuation within the Christian fold. This perspective often framed caste as a historical division of labour or social rank, seen as natural or even moral to observe, stripped of its overt “heathenish” religious justification from Hinduism.[11] Catholic missions, in some instances, were even more accommodating of existing caste structures, as seen in the approach of figures like Robert de Nobili, according to Ashok Mocherla.[12] These historical dynamics illustrate that conversion to Christianity, in practice, did not necessarily translate into the erasure of caste identity or cessation of caste-based social stratification and discrimination.

Similarly, while Islam conceptually emphasizes equality among believers, the social history of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent includes the development of hierarchical structures akin to caste, often reflected in divisions like Ashraf (those claiming foreign ancestry), Ajlaf (indigenous converts from privileged Hindu castes), and Arzal (converts from marginalised Hindu castes, including Dalits), with social interaction and marriage patterns often following these lines.[13]

Therefore, the legal position, as reinforced by judgments like Akkala Rami Reddy, rests on an incomplete and perhaps Orientalist understanding that segregates caste primarily as a “Hindu problem” that is resolved through conversion to religions deemed inherently egalitarian. This perspective fails to acknowledge the socio-economic realities and persistent discrimination faced by Dalit converts, whose historical location within the caste hierarchy continues to shape their experiences regardless of their faith. A more comprehensive understanding would recognize caste not merely as a theological construct limited to Hinduism, but as a deeply entrenched social structure of hierarchy, discrimination, and exclusion that has adapted and manifested within various religious communities in India. Consequently, linking Scheduled Caste status eligibility solely to the profession of specific religions, while ignoring the lived reality of continued caste-based disadvantage among converts to others, appears fundamentally inconsistent with the affirmative action principles intended to address historical injustices rooted in caste. It creates a paradox where individuals continue to suffer caste discrimination but are legally denied the means to address it based on their religious identity, highlighting the critical need for a religion-neutral approach to defining and addressing the Scheduled Castes.

One of the major unresolved issues lies in the Ghazi Saaduddin v. State of Maharashtra case, stalled since 2004. It challenges the constitutional legitimacy of the 1950 Presidential Order. In April 2024, the Supreme Court postponed hearing the matter, pointing to an ongoing inquiry by a commission headed by former Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. The commission’s findings are now due in October 2025.

The core question remains whether the Indian legal system will evolve to recognize the lived reality of caste discrimination beyond specified religious confines, thereby ensuring that the constitutional promise of equality and social justice truly extends to all its Dalit citizens.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation).

[1] [1] CRIMINAL PETITION No.7114 OF 2022

[2] Para 17, AIR 1952 MADRAS 474

[3] Page 12, AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 101

[4] Ibid page 14.

[5] Page 6, AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1904

[6] Page 14, AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 600

[7] Ibid

[8] Para 12, 2024 INSC 920

^[9] Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste (1936), ch.19, Para 7.

^[10] Rupa Vishwanath, The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India (2014), p.313, Columbia University Press.

[11] Ibid p.75

[12] Ashok Kumar Mocherla, Dalit Christians in South India (2021), pp. 107-108

[13] Sobin George & Shrinidhi Adiga, ‘Caste’ Among Muslims: Ethnographic Account from a Karnataka Village(2017), p.1

Related:

Over 300 attacks on Christians reported this year, over 2000 women, Adivasis and Dalits injured

No SC quota for Dalits converting to Islam & Christianity to contest elections: Centre to RS

Beyond “Rice Bag” Christians: Examining the case of Indigenous Christianity in India

The post No to Dalits who are Christian, Muslim, how the AP HC limits its understanding of caste and faith appeared first on SabrangIndia.