Allahabad- In a sweeping directive that could reshape scrutiny over Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) benefit claims across Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has ordered all District Magistrates in the state to investigate potential misuse of reservation benefits by individuals who have undergone religious conversion, completing the process within four months.

The court mandated that these officials report their findings to the Chief Secretary and other principal/additional chief secretaries to prevent "fraud on the Constitution," as observed by the Supreme Court in the landmark C. Selvarani case. The directives were issued on November 21 by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri in a case involving alleged religious conversion and communal discord in Maharajganj district.

The directive stems from a petition filed by Jitendra Sahani under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him, registered at Sinduriya Police Station under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion) and 295A (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code. Sahani, a resident of Mathaniya village in Maharajganj, had initially obtained permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on April 3, 2023, to organize prayer meetings on his private land, focusing on preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ to diverse audiences without discrimination.

However, local tensions escalated, leading to the revocation of this permission on May 3, 2023, amid complaints from the Hindu community. A follow-up order dated December 10, 2023, accused Sahani of erecting a tent at the public Baluahi Dhus Chauraha to host large gatherings aimed at converting Hindus to Christianity, thereby threatening law and order. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed on March 11, 2024, and a summoning order issued on July 24, 2024, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Sahani's counsel, Patsy David and Vandana Henry, argued in the petition that the prayer meetings were peaceful, with no evidence of inflammatory rhetoric, and that witnesses had failed to support the FIR's allegations. They urged the court to annul the charge sheet and stay proceedings to prevent irreparable harm. Countering this, Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Tripathi highlighted the Uttar Pradesh government's sanction under Section 196(1) CrPC, granted via a March 11, order, to prosecute under the invoked IPC sections. He relied heavily on the Section 161 CrPC statement of witness Lakshman Vishwakarma, a 53-year-old local resident, who alleged that Sahani previously a Hindu from the Sahni community had converted to Christianity and assumed the role of a priest.

Vishwakarma's testimony painted a picture of derogatory remarks against Hindu deities, claiming Sahani mocked the faith by ridiculing its pantheon: "He says Hinduism has thousands of gods with eight arms, four limbs, five faces, riding pigs, offering mice as prasad... Some drink bhang, others liquor—this ridicules Hindu beliefs and fosters enmity among communities." The court noted that while such statements are not admissible as evidence, they could be used for contradiction during trial, refusing to intervene at this pre-trial stage.

A pivotal twist emerged when Justice Giri examined Sahani's supporting affidavit, where he professed to be Hindu, directly contradicting witness accounts of his Christian affiliation. This discrepancy prompted the court to delve into constitutional and statutory frameworks governing SC/ST status. Invoking Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the bench reiterated: "No person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste."

This principle extends to Section 2(c) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Articles 341 and 342, which confine SC/ST recognition to specified faiths. The ruling also cross-referenced Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, excluding Christians from the broad 'Hindu' definition unless tied to customary Hindu law.

Bolstering its stance, the court drew on a series of Supreme Court precedents to affirm that religious conversion severs eligibility for caste-based benefits. In the 1986 Soosai vs. Union of India judgment, the apex court clarified: "The constitutional provisions relating to Scheduled Castes are intended to be applied to only those members... who profess the Hindu or the Sikh religion."

The 2015 K.P. Manu vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee decision outlined stringent criteria for reclaiming benefits post-conversion, requiring "absolutely clear cut proof" of original caste membership, reconversion, and community acceptance. Most strikingly, the recent 2024 C. Selvarani vs. Special Secretary ruling labeled such duplicity as "fraud on the Constitution," observing that conversions motivated by reservation gains betray the policy's ethos: "Claiming caste-based benefits merely for the purpose of availing reservation after such conversion amounts to a 'fraud on the Constitution.'... The extension of benefits... to people with such ulterior motive will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation." Justice Giri echoed this, emphasizing genuine faith over opportunistic shifts, while upholding Article 25's guarantee of religious freedom.

The judgment further aligned with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's 2025 Akkala Rami Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ruling, which held that Christianity's absence of caste hierarchies nullifies prior SC classifications upon conversion. The SC/ST Act, the court noted, shields only historically oppressed groups within caste-structured faiths, not converts to egalitarian religions. In a key observation, Justice Giri stated: "India is a secular country. Every citizen has a right to practise and profess a religion of their choice as guaranteed under Article 25... However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief on the other religion, the same cannot be permitted."

Extending its reach beyond the immediate case, the Allahabad High Court issued multifaceted directives to institutionalize compliance. The District Magistrate of Maharajganj was tasked with probing Sahani's religious status within three months, initiating forgery charges if the affidavit proves false.

Broader instructions targeted the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India; Uttar Pradesh's Chief Secretary; the Principal Secretary of the Minorities Welfare Department; and the Additional Chief Secretary of the Social Welfare Department to audit SC/ST and Other Backward Classes (OBC) claims against constitutional norms. All Uttar Pradesh District Magistrates must conclude their reviews within four months, forwarding reports to ensure systemic reforms. The Additional Government Advocate was directed to circulate the order statewide, fostering accountability.