Matribhumi Samachar English
In a judgment that is bound to have far-reaching consequences, the Allahabad High Court (Justice Praveen Kumar Giri) on 2024 dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by one Jitendra Sahani and used the occasion to issue sweeping directions to the Union and Uttar Pradesh governments to systematically identify and act against persons who convert to Christianity or Islam but continue to avail Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe reservation benefits.
The Case in Brief
Jitendra Sahani, a resident of Maharajganj district, Uttar Pradesh, approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR and charge-sheet registered against him under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between groups) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the IPC.
Sahani claimed he was a practising Christian who had obtained prior permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to hold prayer meetings on his private land. The permission was later revoked, and an FIR was lodged after local residents complained that he was :
- Mocking Hindu deities (allegedly calling Bhagwan Ganesha “one-tusked” and describing Hindu gods as “animal-shaped” and “evil spirits”)
- Actively trying to convert poor Hindus by allurements;
- Continuing to organise gatherings despite the revocation of permission.
The State countered that Sahani, earlier a Hindu, had become a Christian “Padri” (priest) while still claiming Hindu religion in his court affidavit and presumably continuing to avail SC/ST benefits.
Key Contradiction Noticed by the Court
While the petition was dismissed on merits (the Court refused to quash the criminal case at the Section 482 stage), Justice Giri zeroed in on a glaring contradiction: in the affidavit filed before the High Court, Sahani declared his religion as Hindu, whereas witnesses and the State’s submission established that he had converted to Christianity and was functioning as a priest.
The Constitutional Core of the Judgment Relying on:
- Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which expressly bars a person professing a religion different from Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist from being deemed a Scheduled Caste;
- A series of Supreme Court judgments, most recently C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary (2024), which held that claiming reservation benefits after genuine conversion to Christianity amounts to “fraud on the Constitution”;
- Soosai (1986), K.P. Manu (2015) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s 2025 decision in Akkala Rami Reddy;
The Court held that the very foundation of Scheduled Caste reservation— historical untouchability and caste-based oppression within the Hindu social order—ceases the moment a person converts to Christianity or Islam, religions that do not recognise caste.
Ground-breaking Directions Issued
In an extraordinary 25-point operative portion, the High Court directed :
1. The District Magistrate, Maharajganj, is to inquire into Jitendra Sahani’s actual religion within three months and initiate strict action if forgery is found.
2. The Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, to examine the larger issue of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs availing benefits after conversion.
3. Principal Secretary (Minorities Welfare) and Additional Chief Secretary (Social Welfare), Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action.
4. All District Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh to complete similar verification within four months and prevent “fraud on the Constitution”.
The Scheduled Tribe Anomaly
The judgment highlights a 75-year-old anomaly: while the 1950 Presidential Order explicitly excludes converts from Scheduled Caste benefits if they leave Hinduism/Sikhism/Buddhism, no such religion-based exclusion exists for Scheduled Tribes under Article 342. As a result, tribal converts to Christianity or Islam have continued to enjoy reservation in jobs, education and welfare schemes meant for historically disadvantaged tribal communities.
The Court’s strong observations are likely to add judicial weight to long-pending demands (since 1967) for de-listing converted tribals or at least bringing Scheduled Tribe reservations in line with the Scheduled Caste position.
Wider Implications
• The judgment comes at a time when the constitutional validity of several state anti-conversion laws is pending before the Supreme Court.
• It provides a judicially articulated basis for the Union government to consider a Constitutional amendment or a new Presidential Order closing the ST loophole.
• Verification drives ordered across Uttar Pradesh may soon be emulated by other states.
• Christian missionary organisations and Dalit/Tribal activists who converted but retained reservation benefits are likely to challenge the directives.
For now, the Allahabad High Court has sent an unambiguous message: genuine religious conversion and retention of caste-based affirmative action benefits cannot coexist. Doing so, in the court’s words, amounts to committing “fraud upon the Constitution”. Hon’ble Court has been Learned A.G.A. is directed to communicate this order to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India/ Chief Secretary, Government of U.P./Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Minorities Welfare Department, Government of U.P. and Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department and all the District Magistrates within State of U.P. to act upon and take action in accordance with law.
Whether Parliament will finally resolve the seven-decade-old inconsistency between the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe reservation rules remains to be seen. But one thing is clear — the debate has been decisively reignited.
Credit : Organiser Weekly
