Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea, Issues Directions on Scheduled Caste Benefits for Converts, Raises Constitutional Concerns

Court flags discrepancies in affidavits, invokes constitutional provisions, and directs a sweeping inquiry to prevent “fraud on the Constitution”

Agencies, Prayagraj, December 3, 2025 : The Allahabad High Court on November 21, 2025 ruled on a case that not only dealt with allegations of religious enmity and insults to religious sentiments but also posed a significant constitutional question regarding the eligibility of converted Christians for benefits reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC). The ruling, delivered by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, dismissed the plea of Jitendra Sahani, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, who had sought to quash criminal proceedings against him. Sahani was facing charges under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the case expanded beyond the immediate charges to encompass concerns about the abuse of SC benefits by individuals who had converted to religions other than Hinduism.

In the significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash criminal proceedings against Jitendra Sahani, a resident of Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. The case, titled Jitendra Sahani vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application U/S 482 No. 41457 of 2024), was heard by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, who not only rejected the plea but also issued wide-ranging directions to the Uttar Pradesh government to curb the wrongful continuation of Scheduled Caste (SC) benefits by persons who have converted to religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism.

CLICK TO SEE THE ORDER

The proceedings originated from Case Crime No. 320 of 2023, registered under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet was filed on 11 March 2024, followed by a cognisance and summoning order dated 24 July 2024 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. Sahani challenged both these orders before the High Court.

The controversy began when Sahani obtained written permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Maharajganj, to “preach the words of Jesus Christ” on land he claimed was privately owned. However, police reported that he instead erected a tent at a public place—Baluahi Dhus Chauraha—and allegedly organised prayer meetings to induce villagers to convert to Christianity. The administration subsequently cancelled his permission on 10 December 2023, citing a potential breach of law and order.

During the investigation, witness Lakshman Vishwakarma, among others, stated that Sahani—originally from the Hindu Kevat community—had accepted Christianity years earlier and was functioning as a Padri (priest). Witnesses further alleged that he used “filthy, abusive and absurd language” about Hindu deities and asserted that Christianity “cures diseases and brings employment”, thereby influencing economically vulnerable individuals to convert.

Sahani’s counsel, Ms Patsy David and Ms Vandana Henry, argued that he had acted strictly within the scope of his original permit and that several witnesses did not support the FIR narrative. They maintained that the applicant was exercising his fundamental right to preach.

However, Justice Giri noted a stark contradiction: although the material collected during investigation indicated that Sahani had converted to Christianity long ago, he filed an affidavit before the High Court describing himself as Hindu, thereby continuing to retain Scheduled Caste status. The court held that such a discrepancy raised the possibility of forgery and misuse of constitutional protections.

In addressing this issue, the court quoted Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which unequivocally states that no person who professes a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism shall be deemed a member of a Scheduled Caste. Justice Giri also reiterated that, under Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, individuals who identify as Christian fall outside the definition of “Hindu”.

The legal proceedings began when Sahani, who had obtained permission from the Maharajganj district administration to preach Christianity on his private land, was accused of violating his permit. According to the Uttar Pradesh government’s counsel, Sahani had organised prayer meetings at a public venue (Baluahi Dhus Chauraha) and attempted to convert people to Christianity by using offensive language against Hindu deities. The government claimed Sahani's actions were inciting religious tensions and offending religious sentiments, leading to the cancellation of his permit and the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Sahani’s defence, led by his lawyers Ms. Patsy David and Ms. Vandana Henry, argued that he had obtained the necessary permission and was merely exercising his fundamental rights to religious freedom. However, the court found contradictions in Sahani’s affidavit. While he claimed to be Hindu in his affidavit, investigations revealed that he had converted to Christianity and was acting as a priest. Furthermore, witnesses testified that Sahani had used "filthy and abusive" language against Hindu deities and made promises of jobs and financial assistance to encourage conversions.

Justice Giri, after reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, dismissed Sahani’s plea to quash the case, noting that the discrepancies in his affidavit raised concerns about possible forgery or fraudulent claims to retain SC benefits despite his conversion. Justice Giri also observed that Sahani's claim to belong to the Scheduled Castes after converting to Christianity was not legally valid, citing the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which explicitly states that only individuals professing Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist faiths are eligible for SC status. The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Soosai vs. Union of India (1986) case, which held that conversion to Christianity disqualifies a person from claiming Scheduled Caste benefits, as caste-based discrimination is not recognised within Christian theology.

Building on these precedents, the court noted the importance of preventing "fraud on the Constitution," a term used by the Supreme Court in previous judgments to describe attempts to exploit constitutional provisions inappropriately. The court highlighted that caste-based protections were designed for communities suffering from historical discrimination, and these protections could not be extended to those who had embraced a religion that does not recognise caste.

The Allahabad High Court not only dismissed Sahani’s plea but also issued a broader directive aimed at preventing misuse of SC entitlements. The court instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to conduct a statewide inquiry to ensure that individuals who have converted to religions other than Hinduism are not improperly claiming benefits reserved for Scheduled Castes. Specifically, the court directed the Maharajganj district magistrate to conduct an inquiry into Sahani’s religious status within three months and take action if any forgery was detected. It also mandated that all district magistrates in Uttar Pradesh verify the religious status of individuals who are claiming SC benefits, ensuring that those who have converted to other religions are not benefiting from these entitlements. The inquiry is to be completed within four months, with compliance reports submitted to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary.

The court’s ruling cited several important legal precedents, including the C. Selvarani vs. Special Secretary-cum-District Collector (2024) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that claiming caste-based benefits after conversion constitutes "fraud on the Constitution." Similarly, the Akkala Rami Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court further emphasised that caste status is nullified upon conversion, as Christianity does not recognise the caste system. The Karnataka High Court also made similar observations, concluding that caste-based protections under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be extended to Christians, as the Act is designed to protect those subjected to caste-based discrimination, which does not apply within Christian communities.

The judgment invoked several precedents, including:

• Soosai vs. Union of India (1986) – which held that Christian converts cannot claim Scheduled Caste benefits.

• K.P. Manu vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee (2015) – requiring clear proof of caste status and community acceptance, particularly in reconversion matters.

• C. Selvarani vs. Special Secretary-cum-District Collector (2024) – declaring dual claims to Christian identity and SC benefits a “fraud on the Constitution”.

• Akkala Rami Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) – affirming that caste structures are not recognised in Christianity, rendering SC status invalid after conversion.

Justice Giri emphasised that the protections under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act exist solely to safeguard communities subjected to caste-based oppression—an institution absent in Christianity—and therefore cannot extend to those who have embraced a faith devoid of caste hierarchies.

Having determined that factual disputes and contradictions must be adjudicated by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the Section 482 application, granting Sahani liberty to pursue a discharge application before the magistrate.

However, in light of broader constitutional concerns, Justice Giri issued extensive directions to prevent the continuation of SC benefits following religious conversion. These include:

• A mandatory inquiry by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, to verify Sahani’s religious status within three months, and to initiate strict legal action if he is found to have filed a false affidavit.

• A statewide verification drive requiring all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to identify individuals who have converted to minority religions but continue to claim SC entitlements.

• A directive that this verification process be completed within four months, after which compliance reports must be submitted to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

• Instructions to the Cabinet Secretary (Government of India), the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, and the Principal Secretary (Minorities Welfare) to implement mechanisms ensuring that SC, ST and OBC benefits are not claimed by persons whose religious conversion legally disqualifies them from such categories.

Justice Giri’s order reinforces the principle that caste-based protections under the Indian Constitution are intended for communities that continue to experience discrimination due to their caste identities. The court stressed that the extension of these benefits to converted individuals undermines the spirit of social justice and the original intent of the Constitution.

The case of Jitendra Sahani thus not only addressed specific allegations of religious intolerance but also brought to the forefront a critical issue concerning the intersection of religion, caste, and legal entitlements. The decision has significant implications for the future of caste-based reservations, especially in a religiously diverse society where conversions are increasingly common. The Allahabad High Court’s decision serves as a warning against misuse of SC benefits and sets a precedent for future scrutiny of such claims. The outcome of the ongoing state-wide inquiry and the enforcement of these directions will likely shape the broader legal landscape around caste-based reservations and religious conversion in India.

The ruling’s implications are far-reaching. It signals increased administrative vigilance across Uttar Pradesh and potentially nationwide, particularly with regard to caste certificates, reservation entitlements, and the legal consequences of conversion on constitutional status. It also reaffirms existing jurisprudence that caste-based benefits are inseparably tied to the social and religious structures within which caste discrimination historically arose.

As the verification exercise begins, the decision is likely to influence future litigation involving religious conversion, caste identity, and claims to affirmative action, making the case a pivotal moment in the evolving intersection of constitutional law, religious freedom, and social justice.