Prayagraj : The Allahabad High Court has held that conversion to another religion does not, by itself, result in the loss of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status.
Court Clarifies Criteria for Scheduled Tribe Membership
The court has ruled that determining whether an individual retains membership in a Scheduled Tribe is a factual question. This assessment must consider essential aspects of tribal identity, including customary practices, social organization, community life, and recognition by the tribal community.
Justice Arun Kumar referenced the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Chintad Anand vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. This judgment emphasized that the status of Scheduled Tribe (ST) depends on the claimant’s ongoing connection to their tribal identity.
Legal Question Raised Over ST Status After Religious Conversion
The state government, represented by Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, has raised questions regarding the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status of an individual who converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim man. The argument is based on evidence that she married according to Islamic customs, adopted the name Naimunisha, and has lived with her husband for several decades. They have two children who bear Muslim names, and the family register lists her religion as Islam. This situation has prompted legal scrutiny concerning her eligibility for ST benefits.
High Court Ruling on Scheduled Tribe Membership and Religious Conversion
The High Court has clarified that a change in religion does not automatically disqualify an individual from being recognized as a member of a Scheduled Tribe. The court emphasized that tribal identity can persist even after conversion, provided that the individual maintains their tribal customs, traditions, and community ties.
However, in the present case, the court said its conclusion was based on the cumulative effect of the circumstances and the absence of evidence demonstrating continuity of tribal life. The court also examined the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe certificate, observing that while it remained a relevant piece of evidence, its existence did not prevent authorities from scrutinising whether she continued to possess the requisite ST status when subsequent material cast doubt on that claim.