EARLIER THIS WEEK, the Allahabad High Court ordered a statewide inquiry into Christian converts retaining Scheduled Caste (‘SC’) status, calling such retention a “fraud on the Constitution.” The High Court relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Akkala Rama Reddy v State of A.P (2025) and noted that a person ceases to belong to their original caste upon conversion to Christianity.
Questions around the caste location of Christian converts, however, are not limited to the courts. The recent caste enumeration conducted by the Karnataka State Backward Class Commission sparked controversy when 33 castes within the Christian community were listed, including Banajiga Christian, Holeya Christian, Madiga Christian, Valmiki Christian. These communities were later dropped after an uproar from the opposition BJP and the governor’s suggestion. While these communities were dropped, four categories within the Christian faith were retained, namely Christian, Protestant Christian, Syrian Christians, and Scheduled Caste (‘SC’) converts to Christianity.
The move highlighted how the caste positionality of those who undergo religious conversion continues to be viewed in government policy. Be it their identity, practice or faith, Dalit Christians (SC converts to Christianity) continue a struggle to navigate their own space amidst multiple binaries.
The discriminatory design of the 1950 Order
In Chinnappa Garden, Bangalore a narrow lane amidst the large bungalows leads you to a Dalit Christian locality. It is primarily inhabited by large numbers of Madigas who practise Christianity. Many residents hold the SC certificates but have not officially converted for the fear of losing reservation benefits. They identify themselves as Hindus officially – a consequence of the oppressive 1950 Presidential Order that places an unfair burden on the people who want to practice Christianity by disenfranchising them from SC benefits once they convert to Islam or Christianity. Due to the fear of losing the SC status, they practise their faith privately, retain their Hindu names, and avoid formal affiliation with the Christian communities.
However, Maya*, Shyamsundar and many others from the community defy the norm and proudly proclaim themselves as Christians without worrying about the consequences. Maya and Shyamsundar narrated that when the Scheduled Caste survey commissioned by the Karnataka government was underway, and officials asked them what they wanted to be identified as – Hindus or Christians – they proudly chose ‘Christian’, despite having been warned that selecting ‘Christian’ would render them without affirmative State support.
Maya explained to me that people warned her to identify as Hindu so that she does not lose the affirmative actions benefits, but she says that she is not concerned about losing the benefit, since identifying truthfully as Christian is non-negotiable for her. “My faith is not something I will compromise,” she said.
Both the above situations underscore the discriminatory and oppressive nature of the 1950 Order. In the first scenario, people are prevented from exercising their freedom of choice and conscience freely, which strikes at the core of an individual's cognitive autonomy. The founders of the Constitution envisioned a society where different individuals were free to choose different faiths; however, the State now tries to keep SC converts hostage by not wanting them to be identified as Christians.
In the second, the State penalises practitioners for choosing their faith. It is unfair for practitioners of Christianity or Islam to let go of their SC status solely because they have converted to Semitic religions. Caste and discrimination operate intrinsically in South Asian society, and these religions are not untouched by them. Hence, the narrow communal outlook of caste that is viewed only through a Hindu framework is deeply flawed. Caste has to be seen independent of religion.
Legal challenges before the Supreme Court
The petitions challenging the 1950 Presidential Order, filed by various Dalit Muslim and Dalit Christian forums and groups – including the Akhil Maharashtra Khatik Samaj (Khatik is a community engaged in the profession of meat selling) and United Front for Dalit Christians – before the Supreme Court point out the existence of caste hierarchy within Islam and Christianity. They highlight that discrimination continues at the social level despite conversion to Semitic faiths.
Secondly, they point out that a Hindu Dhobi (washerman) or a Hindu Khatik are similarly placed on the social ladder with a Muslim Dhobi or Muslim Khatik since their jobs are considered “dirty” in society. Despite this parallel positioning, the former come within the ambit of SC category while the latter are left out, amounting to a grave violation of Article 14, which strikes at the core of reasonableness.
Thirdly, they argue that the Presidential Order is anti-secular and violates the right to profess and practise religion, since it indirectly prohibits anyone from the Scheduled Castes from choosing the faith of Islam or Christianity for fear of losing the SC status.
Lastly, they emphasize the need to delink the SC category from religion, as has been done with Scheduled Tribes – a religion-neutral category – in line with various committee reports. Interestingly, the Muslim Khatiks’ petition broadens the argument by suggesting to expand the eligibility for SC status by not keeping untouchability as the sole criterion for protection under Article 17 and the Atrocities Act, 1989.
In the affidavit filed by the Union government in response to the Dalit Muslim and Dalit Christian petitions before the Supreme Court, the State has argued that the egalitarian principles of the Semitic religions and the purported non-existence of ‘untouchability’ among them justify not extending the SC status. This burden placed on practitioners of these faiths to prove that castes, untouchability and discrimination exist among them is grossly unfair. They are subjected to pass through a higher standard set by the State, whereas as a convert to Buddhism, Sikhism is not required to go through this rigorous process, even though these faiths are within the purview of the Presidential Order despite professing caste-free doctrines. The burden is only on Semitic religions to prove that untouchability exists among them, which is discriminatory on its face. It also cites lack of empirical data and documented evidence to establish that disabilities continue with the same severity despite conversion.
The Union government has argued that the inclusion of Buddhists and Sikhs in the SC category is justified since they are ‘Indic’ religions, and in the case of Buddhist converts, there was voluntary conversion by the Dalits upon the call of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, unlike Christian and Islamic conversions, which occurred centuries ago on account of “other factors,” making the determination of original caste difficult. The inclusion of Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians would be a grave injustice to the existing SCs, the government has argued. Further, it has noted that the original intent of the Presidential Order was to address untouchability, a practice associated with the Hindu social order, and hence has constitutional backing.
Rethinking the idea of untouchability
Several scholars working on the issue of Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians have pointed out the existence of untouchability and presented material evidence of it. Ali Anwar in his seminal work ‘Masawat Ki Jang’ (The Battle for Equality), highlighted the various forms of discrimination faced by the Dalit Muslim castes, like Bakkho, Halalkhor, Nat, and Darzee, in Bihar. He pointed out that the practice of untouchability continues even at the graveyard, as upper-caste Muslims restrict Dalit Muslims from burying their dead in their burial grounds. As per a paper published by Prashant Trivedi – based on a household survey from 14 districts of Uttar Pradesh – one-third of the Dalit Muslims stated that they are not allowed to bury their dead in an upper-caste burial ground.
The paper observes: “Most of the Muslims offer prayers in the same mosque, but in some places Dalit Muslims felt discriminated against in the main mosque. A significant section of Dalit Muslims also feel that their community is seen as being associated with menial jobs. Respondents who studied at the madrasas were found to be more vocal about the untouchability they have experienced.” Even Masood Alam Falahi’s work ‘Zaat Paat aur Musalman’ on Dalit Muslim communities, reveals stark discrimination faced by the Arzal, a community considered the lowest within the Muslim social hierarchy.
It is imperative to recognize that we need to redefine and broaden the idea of untouchability beyond the Hindu fold. It manifests in multiple forms. For instance, upper-caste Muslims like Sayyeds, Pathans and Sheikhs do not allow marriages with Muslim castes like Mehtar, Nadaf, Pinjari or Bazigar.
Consider the case of Shareef Nadaf, a social worker belonging to the Nadaf-Pinjari community, which engages in making cotton carding or ginning. When I asked Shareef about inter faith marriages within the Muslim community, he quickly responded that they simply do not happen and are hard even to imagine. Shareef notes that many youths from the Nadaf community have changed their surnames due to stigma, inferiority,and the desire for wider social acceptance. If exclusion, stigma, and denial of equal social relations persist in this way, is this not a form of untouchability?
It is pertinent to note that the Constituent Assembly deliberately left the word “untouchability” undefined and unrestricted to ensure it encompasses all future forms of discrimination that may take the shape of untouchability.
Justice D.Y Chandrachud, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v Union of India (2019), which dealt with enabling entry for women of menstruating ages within the Sabrimala Temple, emphasized that Article 17’s link with human dignity and its broad, evolving anti-exclusionary principle while concluding that untouchability strikes at the core of notions of “purity and pollution”. He observed:
Article 17 must be construed from the perspective of its position as a powerful guarantee to preserve human dignity and against the stigmatization and exclusion of individuals and groups on the basis of social hierarchism…The Constitution has designedly left untouchability undefined. Any form of stigmatization which leads to social exclusion is violative of human dignity and would constitute a form of “untouchability.”
Article 17 is an intrinsic part of the social transformation which the Constitution seeks to achieve. Hence in construing it, the language of the Constitution should not be ascribed a curtailed meaning which will obliterate its true purpose. “Untouchability” in any form is forbidden. The operation of the words used by the Constitution cannot be confined to a particular form or manifestation of “untouchability.” The Constitution as a constantly evolving instrument has to be flexible to reach out to injustice based on untouchability, in any of its forms or manifestations.
It is also important to recognize that many lower castes may have embraced Islam and Christianity hoping to escape caste, but that is far from the only reason for conversion. People choose new faiths based on a constellation of factors. The State should not assume they converted solely to escape caste or believe they now live in an egalitarian eco-system. People may convert even knowing caste persists, because their spiritual connection, doctrinal belief or personal relationship with God draws them to the faith. What touches a human cannot be reduced to a mere legal question, although courts often frame it as such when examining the status of Scheduled Caste converts.
In Akala Amma Reddy (2025), a Christian pastor who converted from Hindu Madiga Schedule Caste filed an FIR under the Atrocities Act, 1989 alleging caste-based abuse and assault by Hindu Reddys. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the pastor cannot claim the Act’s protection since he had converted to Christianity, unless reconversion is proven.
Based on the fact that the complainant had served as a pastor for 10 years and named his children Jadson and Mahima Paul, the single-judge bench concluded that he is a Christian and therefore cannot invoke the Act. The Court reasoned that he ceased to be a member of the SC community the day he converted to Christianity.
The reasoning rests on the assumption that caste stratification does not exist in Christian religious scriptures. This becomes clearer when the bench notes that “the caste system is alien to Christianity,” suggesting that caste is reliant on religion. What is striking is that the pastor continued to face casteist abuse from Hindu Reddys despite his conversion, meaning that in their eyes, he remained a Madiga — a lower caste. The deeper truth is that caste identity survives in social perception despite conversion. It also shows that disabilities and handicaps continue with the same oppressive severity even within a new religious context. To the world around him he is still a Madiga.
The Dalit-Christians and Muslims therefore cannot avail the protection granted under the protective legislation because of their conversion to a Semitic religion, despite continuing social stigma and exclusion.
The term “Scheduled Caste” in the Constitution connotes a religion neutral reference under Article 341. However, the 1950 Order speaks in a contrary language. It is high time, thus, that the 1950 Presidential Order be brought in line with the Constitution and with the recommendations of the Gopal Singh Panel, Sachar Committee, Ranganath Misra Commission and the National Commission for Minorities Report, 2008 which recommended amending the 1950 Presidential Order to include all Schedule Caste converts regardless of religion by citing principles of justice and fairness.
To use the words of Dr. Ambedkar, “Whatever is wrongly settled is never settled and must be resettled” and the same holds true for the 1950 Order.