Listen to this article:

For more than seven decades, the Indian legal system has operated on a specific constitutional premise: conversion to a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, automatically eradicates the historical and material disabilities associated with “untouchability.”

This legal framework was reaffirmed on March 24, 2026, when the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings in the case of Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ruling that a person belonging to a Dalit Christian community cannot invoke the protections of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Union government is currently awaiting the findings of a dedicated commission on the subject. In the interim, here is a guide to the legal, historical, and sociological dimensions of the Scheduled Caste status and religious conversion.

Complicating this legal battle is the historical reluctance of Indian Christian and Muslim leadership to acknowledge the prevalence of caste within their own communities. This hesitation has frequently weakened the argument for statutory inclusion. Nevertheless, numerous sociological studies and grassroots observations highlight the transferability and persistence of caste despite conversion to Islam and Christianity, evidenced most starkly by the existence of separate churches for Dalit Christians. 

What is the foundational law that excluded Dalit Christians and Muslims from Scheduled Caste (SC) status?

The exclusion originates from a Presidential Order issued in 1950. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, issued by the President of India in 1950 under Article 341 of the Constitution, via Clause 3 introduced a religious dimension, stating: “No person who professes a religion different from the Hindu religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”

This meant that converting to Christianity or Islam severs individuals from statutory protections, legally tying affirmative action exclusively to the Hindu religious identity.

What did the Supreme Court rule in its most recent judgment on March 24, 2026?

In Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2026), the appellant, born into the Madiga community, alleged he was wrongfully restrained and assaulted with casteist slurs by members of the dominant Reddy community. The appellant, who had been practising as a Christian pastor for a decade, sought protection under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, outlining four key........

© The Wire