The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has raised serious questions over the constitutional validity of including certain Christian communities and converts in Tamil Nadu’s Backward Classes (BC) and Most Backward Classes (MBC) reservation lists, observing that there is “nothing axiomatic or eternal about one’s OBC status”, as reported in The Hindu.
A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi made the observations on Thursday, 12 November 2026, while hearing a petition filed by G. Kodeeswaran from Melur taluk in Madurai district.
The petitioner has challenged the inclusion of Christian Nadar, Christian Shanar and Christian Gramani communities in Schedule I of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. He has also challenged the provision allowing converts to Christianity from the Meenavar, Parvatharajakulam, Pattanavar, Sembadavar, Mukkuvar and Mukayar communities to retain their respective BC or MBC classifications.
He has sought a declaration that these entries are unconstitutional and a direction to the authorities to remove the concerned communities from the Schedule and the State’s BC, MBC and Denotified Communities lists.
The petitioner, who belongs to the Kallar community, a notified BC, had applied for the Combined Civil Services Examination IV (Group IV Services). He argued that the reservation pool meant for genuinely backward communities was being diluted by the inclusion of Christian denominations and converts who, according to him, had not undergone any empirical assessment of their social and educational backwardness as required under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
The Bench observed that a clear constitutional justification was necessary for including or retaining any community in the OBC list.
“Merely because some entities had enjoyed the privilege of reservation for a few decades, would that necessarily mean that the original inclusion was constitutionally justified.? We answer in the negative. As and when a challenge is mounted, the government is obliged to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that inclusion or retention of the concerned entity in the OBC list is constitutionally warranted or justified,” the court said.
The petition also highlighted what the petitioner described as an inconsistency in the treatment of different categories of religious converts.
While individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes lose their SC status upon conversion to Christianity, they are treated as BCs. However, certain communities classified as MBCs, including Meenavar, Parvatharajakulam and Mukkuvar, are permitted to retain their existing classification even after converting to Christianity.
The petitioner contended that such differential treatment, without an adequate empirical basis, raised questions about the constitutional validity of the classifications.
The Bench noted that the petition raised profound constitutional questions concerning the foundations of reservation jurisprudence in Tamil Nadu.
It further observed that the allegations regarding the absence of objective data, disregard for recommendations of expert commissions and arbitrary classification raised serious doubts about the constitutional validity of the challenged entries in Schedule I of the 2016 Act.
The court also recorded the petitioner’s contention that the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16(1) could not be compromised for political considerations.
“We are satisfied that the petitioner has established a prima facie case that warrants deep constitutional scrutiny”, the court said.
Holding that the issues raised required examination, the Division Bench ordered notice to the State government.
The matter will now be examined further by the High Court.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
