The Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court has discharged a couple from charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act after holding that the complainant, who had converted to Islam after marriage, could not invoke the law’s Scheduled Caste protections.
Justice Vrushali V Joshi ruled that the special statute could not be applied against the accused in the absence of the complainant retaining Scheduled Caste status in law. The court, however, refused to end the entire criminal case, holding that allegations under ordinary penal provisions still disclosed issues that required trial.
The case arose from a family dispute involving a woman who was born into the Mahar community and married a Muslim man in 2011. The woman told the court that she had converted to Islam at the time of marriage, professed the Muslim faith thereafter and changed her name following the conversion. The complaint was filed against her husband’s sister and the sister’s husband, who had stayed with the family for some time in 2015.
The complainant alleged that tensions developed after she asked the relatives to keep the house clean, avoid excessive use of water and maintain the toilet properly. She claimed the dispute led to physical assault and caste-based abuse by the relatives, who, she alleged, were aware of her birth community. The complaint led to charges under the Atrocities Act as well as penal provisions dealing with assault and intimidation.
The accused argued that the case stemmed from a domestic and property-linked dispute within the same family and that the Atrocities Act had been wrongly invoked. Their counsel submitted that no offence under the special law was made out because the complainant had converted to Islam and was no longer entitled to claim the protection available to a Scheduled Caste person under the statute.
The prosecution did not seriously dispute the legal position arising from the complainant’s conversion, while maintaining that the ordinary criminal allegations would survive. The court accepted that distinction. It discharged the couple from the Atrocities Act charges but said the remaining allegations under penal law would have to be tested before the trial court.
The ruling follows the legal position that Scheduled Caste status under the Constitution Order, 1950, is confined to persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism. Courts have held that a person who converts to Islam or Christianity cannot claim Scheduled Caste status unless there is legally established reconversion and acceptance back into the community. The principle has been reaffirmed in cases where complainants sought to invoke the Atrocities Act despite having professed another religion.
The Supreme Court’s March 2026 judgment in the Chinthada Anand case sharpened that position. The court held that conversion to Christianity ended the appellant’s Scheduled Caste status for the purpose of invoking the Atrocities Act, and that a caste certificate could not override the constitutional requirement. The judgment stressed that the special penal law protects those who meet the statutory and constitutional definition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the relevant time.
The Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur order extends the same reasoning to a conversion to Islam. The court’s decision does not pronounce on whether caste prejudice can survive religious conversion as a social reality. It addresses the narrower legal question of whether the complainant could invoke the Atrocities Act after acknowledging conversion and continued profession of Islam.
The distinction is significant because the Atrocities Act carries special procedures and stringent consequences, including restrictions on anticipatory bail in specified cases and trial before special courts. Courts generally require the complaint to show not only insult or assault but also that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the offence was linked to that identity.
