Adivasi Delisting Debate: Should ST status remain after Religious Conversion?  

Why in News?

The Janjati Suraksha Manch (JSM) has demanded the delisting of tribal people who convert to Christianity or Islam from the Scheduled Tribes (ST) category. 

Simultaneously, census enumeration in Jharkhand has seen Adivasi communities appealing for “Sarna” or “others” to be written in the religion column.

The Supreme Court ruled in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026) that a person professing any religion other than Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism cannot be recognised as a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) community, reigniting debate over whether similar logic should apply to STs. 

What is Delisting?

• Delisting refers to the demand that tribal people who convert to Christianity or Islam should lose their Scheduled Tribe (ST) status and related constitutional benefits, including reservations in education and employment, and protection under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
• Supporters of delisting argue that conversion enables access to institutional support from religious organisations while allowing continued access to ST reservations. They contend that reservation benefits should primarily reach economically and socially disadvantaged tribal groups that continue to face traditional forms of exclusion.
• Opponents counter that tribal disadvantage arises from geography, ethnicity, land alienation and historical marginalisation, factors that often persist even after conversion.

Key Constitutional & Legal Framework

Article 341 vs. Article 342: Foundational Distinction

• Article 341 (Scheduled Castes): The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, explicitly restricts SC status to those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism. Conversion to Christianity or Islam extinguishes SC status.
• Article 342 (Scheduled Tribes): Article 342 makes no mention of religion. ST legal status centres on ethnicity, community kinship, and anthropological distinctiveness. According to guidelines set by the Government of India, the core criteria for recognising a community as an ST under Article 342 are prescribed by the Lokur Committee (1965), which include:
  • Indication of primitive traits
  • Distinctive culture and traditions
  • Geographical isolation (living in distinct or remote areas)
  • Shyness of contact with the larger community
  • General socio-economic and educational backwardness

The President of India has the constitutional power to specify or declare tribal communities or groups to be Scheduled in relation to any state or union territory after consulting the Governor of the concerned region under Article 342. 

Other Relevant Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, which applies to Adivasis equally.
• Article 15(4): Enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including STs.
• Article 29: Protects the right of any section of citizens to conserve its distinct language, script, or culture.
• Fifth Schedule: Governs the administration of Scheduled Areas and provides special protections for tribal land and governance.

Key Judicial Precedents: 

• Patna High Court (1963): The Patna HC ruled “an Oraon remains an Oraon” regardless of faith, affirming that tribal identity is ethnographic, not religious. The High Court observed that converted Adivasis continued to participate in community festivals, observed tribal customs, and shared common concerns with the broader Adivasi community, making their ethnic identity intact regardless of religious affiliation. This judgment has often been cited in discussions on tribal identity and conversion, though the issue has not been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
• Supreme Court (2026), Chinthada Anand: Reaffirmed the bar on SC status for converts, but this ruling applies exclusively to Article 341 and the 1950 Presidential Order, not to Article 342.

The Sarna Identity Question:

• The Sarna community follows a nature-based, animist faith distinct from Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. They worship the sacred grove (Jaher) and revere natural elements.
• The Jharkhand Legislative Assembly passed a resolution demanding a separate “Sarna” column in the Census religion enumeration, a long-standing demand by Adivasi intellectuals that the Central Government has not acted upon.
• The Sarna community strongly resists both the equation of their faith with Hinduism and the targeting of Christian Adivasis.

Tribals in India are officially exempt from core Hindu personal laws (like the Hindu Marriage Act & Hindu Succession Act (“HSA”) and are governed by their own customary practices. This has created a conflict between customary laws and constitutional rights.

Critical Analysis: 

• Existing constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations have generally treated Scheduled Tribe status as rooted in tribal identity rather than religious affiliation. Consequently, conversion has not automatically resulted in the loss of ST status.
• The demand to extend the SC framework (Article 341 + 1950 Order) to STs would require either a constitutional amendment to Article 342 or a new Presidential Order, both politically and legally contentious. 

Broader Adivasi Grievances: 

Critics argue the delisting controversy diverts attention from far more pressing and concrete challenges:

• Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006: Widespread allegations of dilution and non-implementation; millions of forest-dwelling Adivasi households have had claims rejected or not processed.
• PESA (Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996: PESA sought to enable Panchayats and Gram Sabhas to implement self-governance with respect to customary resources, minor forest produce, minor minerals, minor water bodies, and control over local institutions. Various government committees, civil society studies and reports of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs have highlighted gaps in PESA implementation across several states.
• Mining displacement: Adivasi communities in Sijimali (Odisha) and Hasdeo (Chhattisgarh) have been fighting against forest diversion for bauxite and coal mining, with forests previously designated “no-go zones” opened to private companies.
• Large backlogs in reserved government posts for STs remain unfilled.
• Poor condition of Adivasi student hostels and arrears in scholarship disbursements.
• Continued lack of basic civic and healthcare infrastructure in tribal areas.

Way Forward: 

• Protect the ethnographic basis of ST status under Article 342; resist any religionisation of tribal identity as it runs contrary to constitutional intent and settled judicial precedent.
• Implement FRA and PESA in letter and spirit, ensuring gram sabha rights are not subverted in mining and diversion decisions.
• Consider the long-standing demand for separate enumeration of Sarna followers in the Census while balancing administrative feasibility and broader policy considerations.
• Fill ST reservation backlogs in public employment and strengthen tribal educational infrastructure.
• Uphold Article 25, any conversion that is voluntary and free from fraud or coercion is a matter of individual conscience and cannot be the basis for withdrawing constitutional protections.
• Ensure that laws against fraudulent conversions are not misused to target religious minorities or divide Adivasi communities. 

The delisting debate raises complex questions at the intersection of tribal identity, religious freedom, affirmative action and constitutional equality. Any policy change must be guided by empirical evidence, constitutional principles and the objective of ensuring that welfare benefits reach genuinely disadvantaged tribal communities without undermining cultural autonomy or social cohesion.