The story so far: The Allahabad High Court has held that conversion to another religion does not automatically end a person’s Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. However, where a person’s continuing tribal status is disputed, the court can examine whether they continue to have a connection with the tribe.
The case concerned three agricultural land transactions in Sonbhadra district, Uttar Pradesh, made in 2011, 2017 and 2018. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 does not prescribe a religion-based exclusion from ST status. Because they converted to another religion, therefore, a person cannot be treated as having lost ST status merely. Because the sellers themselves belonged to Scheduled Tribes, the court also rejected the argument that the transactions were valid.
The ruling came in a case concerning the purchase of tribal land in Uttar Pradesh. it ultimately upheld the cancellation of three land transactions after finding that the person claiming ST status had not established that she continued to have the required connection with the Bhuiyan tribe While the court rejected the argument that conversion by itself ends ST status. The petitioner claimed to belong to the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe by birth and relied on an ST certificate issued by the revenue authorities. She claimed that the sellers were also members of Scheduled Tribes. The transactions were later questioned by the revenue authorities. The issue was whether the petitioner continued to possess ST status on the dates on which she purchased the land. Applying this approach, the court found that the petitioner had not established that she continued to possess the relevant tribal identity when she purchased the lands. The relevant question was whether the purchaser also possessed ST status on the dates of the transactions. The court’s reasoning was based on the distinction between religion and tribal identity. It did not treat the petitioner’s marriage, conversion or the official records describing her as Muslim as individually decisive. Instead, it considered the circumstances together and examined whether there was evidence showing that she had continued to maintain her connection with the Bhuiyan community. The court found that she had not produced sufficient material to show that, despite the circumstances relied upon by the authorities, she continued to follow the customs and traditions of the Bhuiyan tribe, participate in its social and community life and remain recognised and accepted by the community.
However, the court said that where continuing ST status is disputed, it can examine the person’s tribal traits, customs, traditions and continuing connection with the tribal community.
She was also known by a different name, while certain official records described her as Muslim. The dispute arose from statutory restrictions on the transfer of land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes. A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar dismissed the three writ petitions and upheld the orders declaring the transactions void. The court held that conversion does not, by itself, automatically take away Scheduled Tribe status. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Kerala v.
In January 2026, the Deputy Collector in Sonbhadra declared the three transactions void and directed that the land vest in the State government. Under Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, such land could not be transferred to a person who was not a member of a Scheduled Tribe. Chandramohanan (2004) and Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026), the court said that whether a person continues to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe after conversion is essentially a question of fact.
The central question was therefore whether the petitioner continued to be a member of the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe when the three sale deeds were executed.
The authorities relied on material showing that she had married a Muslim man according to Islamic rites and had lived with him for several decades. The court said that “conversion, considered in isolation, cannot be treated as an inflexible rule resulting in extinction of Scheduled Tribe status; the issue has to be determined on the facts and evidence of each case”.
The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court.
The issue, therefore, was not simply whether the petitioner had converted. As a result, she could not rely on ST status to acquire the protected tribal land, and the three transactions were held to be void. The court also cautioned against applying an overly rigid test. A person cannot be expected to prove that they followed every tribal custom throughout their life, nor can a single document describing someone as belonging to another religion determine their ST status. It was whether she continued to possess the tribal identity necessary to claim ST status when she purchased the land. The court concluded that she had failed to establish that continuing connection.
