Constitutionality of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
Ghazi Saaduddin v State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court has to decide whether Clause 3 of the The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is invalid under the Constitution
Pending
Parties
Petitioner: Ghazi Saaduddin
Lawyers: Advocate Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Respondent: State of Maharashtra, Scheduled Caste Verification Committee at Aurangabad, State Election Commission
Lawyers: Advocate S.C. Birla, Advocate Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
Case Details
Case Number: C.A. No 000329 - 000330 / 2004
Next Hearing: May 7, 2026
Last Updated: May 7, 2026
Case Description
The petitioner, Ghazi Saaduddin is a resident of Aurangabad, Maharashtra who contested the Municipal Corporation election from Ward No. 68—a seat reserved for candidates from the Scheduled Caste category. He claimed to belong to the “Madari” caste, which is listed as Scheduled Caste at Entry 46 under Part X of The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. He was declared elected on 13 April 2000.
On 26 April, the defeated candidate, Mr Chandne filed a complaint with the Municipal Commissioner, seeking to disqualify Saaduddin on the grounds that a person professing Islam cannot claim SC status.
On the advice of the State Election Commission, the matter was referred to the Schedule Caste Verification Committee. By order dated 28 August 2000, the Committee invalidated Saaduddin’s claim. Challenging the said order, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court. The petition further challenged a Government Resolution (GR) dated 21 March 1979, which amended Para 3 of the The Constitution SC Order, 1950 to declare that “no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh or Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the GR. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court in a civil appeal in January 2002.
Background
A similar matter came up before the Court in Soosai v Union of India (1995), where the petitioner—a Hindu from an Adi-Dravidian caste—claimed that he was deprived of SC welfare assistance due to his conversion to Christianity. The Court dismissed his plea, citing Para 3 of SC Order, 1950. It noted the lack of sufficient evidence “to show that the same caste continues after conversion.”
Trajectory post 2002
Multiple petitions on the question of SC status post religious conversion were tagged with Saaduddin’s petition. One of these is a 2004 petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation.
Key issue(s)
- By excluding members of religions other than Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism from the definition of SC persons, does Para 3 of SC Order, 1950 violate Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25?
- Does exclusion of members from other religions from the definition clause result in deprivation of benefits that would violate Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25?
On 29 October 2004, the Government of India constituted the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities, headed by former Chief Justice of India, Ranganathan Mishra. The Committee submitted its report in 2007 and recommended extending the benefit of SC reservations to Dalits who have converted to Christianity and Islam.
While the Supreme Court considered the findings of the Committee, the central government discarded the same, deeming the report “flawed”. Subsequently, in 2022, it constituted another committee, under the Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, to be led by former CJI, K. G. Balakrishnan. The committee is yet to submit a report.
The matter was last heard by the three-judge bench of CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi.