The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24) held that a person who has converted to Christianity cannot continue to claim the protections available to the Scheduled Castes.The bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan upheld the Andhra Pradesh HC’s order and said that other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, “a person cannot simultaneously profess and practice a religion… and claim membership of a Scheduled Caste at the same time. A person who professes and practices such religion for personal, social and spiritual purposes cannot in law, assert membership of a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of securing statutory benefits. The two positions are mutually exclusive and contrary to the Constitutional scheme.”The bar, the SC said, is “absolute” and admits “no exceptions”.The order sits at the junction of two competing ideas – one is the constitutional design of the Scheduled Caste status, which is as much a social identity as a legal recognition defined through the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The other is caste-based discrimination, which has been shown to persist even after conversion, particularly among Dalit Christians.The caseThe case arose from a complaint filed by Pastor Chintada Anand Paul in Andhra Pradesh’s Pittalavanipalem village. He alleged that he had been repeatedly abused using caste slurs, threatened with death and physically assaulted on two occasions, once during a prayer meet and later while returning from one.Based on his complaint, a case was registered under the SC/ST Act, including the criminal provisions of wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, and hurt under the IPC.The accused then approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. Their case rested on a single point that the complainant had converted to Christianity years ago and had been functioning as a pastor. Therefore, he could not claim to be a member of a Scheduled Caste and could not invoke the SC/ST Act.Story continues below this adThe complainant countered this by relying on his caste certificate identifying him as a Hindu-Madiga, a recognised Scheduled Caste, and argued that caste, being linked to birth, does not disappear with conversion.For context, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted precisely because India’s most marginalised communities, those who have historically faced caste discrimination, violence and social exclusion, needed legal protection. It creates specific offences, harsher punishments and a dedicated court structure. The issue the court had to deal with was whether that legal protection travels with a person after they have voluntarily left the community through religious conversion.The Andhra Pradesh HC in April 2025 had said that the “caste system is alien to Christianity” and that the SC/ST Act is “protective legislation” meant specifically for the members of the SC/ST community. The provisions of the act, it said, cannot be invoked by someone who does not fall within the ambit of that definition.The court had also held that there were inconsistencies and a lack of corroborating evidence in the witness statements and that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose and would amount to subjecting the accused to an unnecessary trial.The lawStory continues below this adThe court’s reasoning on conversion and Scheduled Caste status rests on a set of constitutional and statutory rules that tie caste identity to the religion a person professes. This framework begins with the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, issued under Article 341. Paragraph 3 of the Order states that, “no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be member of a Scheduled Caste.”The law thus treats conversion to Christianity as a point at which the Scheduled Caste status ends.This classification is reinforced by the Constitution itself. Article 366(24) defines Scheduled Castes as those groups notified by the President under Article 341. Both provisions work in tandem, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act adopts the same definitions. The result is that the legal identity of a person as a Scheduled Caste is inseparable from the religion they profess. Once their social membership to the community ends, the legal protections tied to it end as well.Also Read | In alleged religious conversion case, why Scheduled Caste identity came up in Allahabad HCWhat the SC heldStory continues below this adThe bench held that there was no claim of reconversion or re-entry into the caste community. Instead, the record showed that the appellant “continues to profess Christianity and has been functioning as a pastor for over a decade”.“It is also an admitted position that at the time of the alleged incident…[he] was conducting prayer meeting,” the Court said, adding that these facts “leave no room for doubt” about his status at the time of the incident.On constitutional terms, to “profess” a religion, the court said, is not just what one believes but what one lives and presents to the world. It said, “the term ‘profess’ connotes to publicly declare or practice a religion… It is not merely a question of personal belief or private conviction, but requires an outward manifestation of one’s faith.” By that measure, the appellant’s role as a pastor, leading prayers, organising gatherings, made his position legally unambiguous.The Court returned to the 1950 Order and underlined its effect. It described it as “categorical and unambiguous”. It bars anyone professing a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism from being treated as a member of a Scheduled Caste.Story continues below this ad“Irrespective of the appellant’s caste of origin, he cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste,” the Court said. The effect of conversion, it added, is immediate: “Once the appellant converted to Christianity, the caste status, which he earlier enjoyed… stood eclipsed in the eyes of law.”On the caste certificate, the Court drew a line between paperwork and law. The fact that the appellant continued to hold a certificate did not change his legal position. It said, “mere possession of the certificate will not be of any benefit,” the Court said, stressing that such certificates must operate “in consonance with the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.”The Court also clarified that the position is different for Scheduled Tribes, where religion is not the determining factor. But even there, it said, identity depends on whether a person continues to be part of the community in terms of customs and recognition.In this case, however, there was no such complexity. The facts were clear, and so was the law. The appellant had converted, continued to practise Christianity publicly, and had not returned to his original fold.