Overview The Supreme Court on 25 March 2026 issued a two‑judge order stating that only persons professing Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism can claim Scheduled Caste (SC) status. The Indian National Congress, through General Secretary Randeep Surjewala , questioned the judgment, pointing out that the matter has been pending before a three‑judge bench since 2011. Key Developments The two‑judge bench ruled that converts to Christianity, Islam and other minorities cannot be classified as SCs. Congress highlighted procedural irregularities, asking why a larger bench was not involved when the issue has been under adjudication since 21 January 2011 . The party cited a commission headed by former CJI K. G. Balakrishnan , whose report is still awaited. Surjewala challenged the government's claim that the case only concerns the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , not reservation. He raised parity concerns: Dalits converting to Sikhism or Buddhism retain SC status, whereas those converting to Christianity or Islam do not. Important Facts 1. The judgment rests on a literal reading of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 . 2. A three‑judge bench has been hearing a public interest litigation on the same issue since 2011, making the two‑judge decision potentially premature. 3. The 2022 Balakrishnan commission was tasked with examining the social‑economic impact of conversion on SC status, but its findings have not been submitted to the court. 4. The government has not clarified whether the SC status for converts would apply only for the Atrocities Act or also for reservation benefits under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. UPSC Relevance Understanding this controversy is crucial for GS Paper II (Polity) as it touches upon: Interpretation of constitutional provisions and the role of the judiciary. Affirmative action policies and their legal basis. Federal‑centre dynamics, especially the government's responsibility to present facts before the apex court. Social justice and the interplay between religion, caste and state welfare measures. Way Forward • The government may seek to refer the matter to the larger three‑judge bench to ensure consistency with the pending PIL. • Submission of the Balakrishnan commission’s report could provide empirical data for a nuanced policy decision. • A legislative amendment to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order may be required to address the parity issue. • Civil society and political parties should engage in a broader debate on whether "conversion" alone eliminates historic stigma, informing future amendments to Articles 15 and 16.