Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has held that conversion to another religion does not, by itself, result in the loss of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status.The court observed that whether a person continues to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe is a question of fact that must be determined by examining the essential attributes of tribal identity, including customary practices, social organisation, community life, and acceptance by the tribal community.Justice Arun Kumar made the observations while relying extensively on Supreme Court’s 2026 judgment in Chintad Anand vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, which held that the determination of ST status depends on whether the claimant continues to retain tribal identity.The case arose from petitions filed by Ninhki alias Naimunisha, who claimed to belong to the Bhuiya Scheduled Tribe community. She challenged three orders passed by the deputy collector, Sonbhadra, declaring land transfers in her favour void.The authorities found that the transfers violated Section 157-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and Section 99 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. As a result, the land was ordered to vest in the state govt.These provisions restrict the transfer of land owned by members of a Scheduled Tribe to people who are not members of a Scheduled Tribe.The petitioner contended that she was born into the Bhuiya tribe, possessed a valid ST certificate issued by the tehsildar, and had purchased the land from members of the Gond tribe. She argued that the transactions were therefore valid.The state govt, represented by Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, questioned whether she continued to enjoy ST status. It relied on material indicating that she had married a Muslim man according to Islamic rites, subsequently came to be known as Naimunisha, lived with him for several decades, and had two children with Muslim names. The family register also recorded her religion as Islam.According to the state, her subsequent religious and social identity disentitled her from claiming ST status at the relevant time.In response, the petitioner maintained that she had not abandoned her tribal identity despite marrying a Muslim. She asserted that she continued to reside in her village, followed the customs of the Bhuiya tribe, and remained part of the tribal community. She argued that there was no reliable evidence showing that she had severed ties with the Bhuiya community.At the outset, High Court clarified that there can be no blanket legal proposition that a person ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe merely because of a change in religion.The court observed that even after conversion, a person may continue to belong to a Scheduled Tribe if tribal traits, customs, traditions, and community connections remain intact.It said that no rigid test could be applied in such cases. A person can neither be required to prove adherence to every tribal custom throughout life, nor can a single document describing a person as Muslim conclusively determine ST status.However, in the present case, the court said its conclusion was based on the cumulative effect of the circumstances and the absence of evidence demonstrating continuity of tribal life.The court also examined the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe certificate, observing that while it remained a relevant piece of evidence, its existence did not prevent authorities from scrutinising whether she continued to possess the requisite ST status when subsequent material cast doubt on that claim.Ultimately, the court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that she continued to possess Bhuiya ST status on the dates of the disputed sale deeds.“The material relied upon by the respondents indicates that, for several decades, she lived under a different name and within a different religious and social setting,” the court noted.The court stressed that its conclusion was not based solely on her marriage, the allegation of conversion, or an isolated entry recording her religion as Muslim. Rather, it rested on the prolonged circumstances brought on record and the lack of convincing evidence showing continued adherence to Bhuiya customs, participation in tribal community life, and acceptance by the Bhuiya community.Accordingly, the court held that the transactions attracted the statutory prohibition applicable to transfers in favour of persons who do not belong to a Scheduled Tribe.The writ petitions were dismissed, and the revenue authorities’ orders were upheld in the judgment delivered on Sept 14.
