The Madras High Court has issued notice in a writ petition raising "profound constitutional questions" regarding the inclusion of various Christian denominations and converts in the Backward Class (BC) and Most Backward Class (MBC) lists in Tamil Nadu. The Writ Petition challenges specific entries in Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

The Bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice M. D. Sumathi began the order by stating, "There is nothing axiomatic or eternal about one’s OBC status. A clear case has to be made out for inclusion or retention in the OBC list. Merely because some entities have 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."


Advocate K. Suresh appeared for the Petitioner G.Kodeeswaran, while M.Kannan, Special Government Pleader appeared for the State and Advocate V.Panneerselvam for Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). 

Facts

The petitioner claimed to be a youth hailing from the Kallar community, which is a notified Backward Class, and approached the Court after applying for the TNPSC Group IV Services. He contended that the reservation pool meant for genuinely backward classes is being unconstitutionally diluted by the inclusion of Christian denominations and converts, without any empirical test of social and educational backwardness as mandated by Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that historical expert bodies, including the First Backward Classes Commission headed by A.N. Sattanathan and the Second Backward Classes Commission headed by J.A. Ambashankar, had explicitly declined or rejected the inclusion of Christian converts from Backward Classes. Despite this, the State executive issued Government Orders in the 1980s inducting them into the statutory lists without collecting quantifiable data.

The petition also highlighted glaring anomalies in the present statutory framework. It was pointed out that an individual from a Scheduled Caste (SC) who converts to Christianity is classified as a Backward Class, whereas individuals from certain Most Backward Classes (MBC) who convert to Christianity are permitted to retain their highly sought-after MBC status. The petitioner argued this creates a legal fiction where an erstwhile SC convert, whose ancestors suffered the most egregious forms of historical untouchability, is structurally disadvantaged compared to an MBC convert.

Observations / Findings

While admitting the writ petition, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner had established a prima facie case warranting deep constitutional scrutiny.  

The Court noted that it was "startled" by the petitioner's assertion that "if a Brahmin gets converted and joins CSI denomination, he can enjoy OBC status as per the present statutory framework."

The Bench observed that if this assertion is true, "a serious re-think is certainly called for."

The petitioner relied on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed (2026), which held that a change of religion cannot, by itself, establish a new birth-based community identity.  

Finding that the factual assertions regarding the lack of objective data, the explicit disregard of expert commission recommendations, and the arbitrary nature of the classifications raised serious doubts about the constitutional validity of the impugned entries, the High Court admitted the plea and issued notice returnable in eight weeks.

The Judgment of the Apex Court in Sameer Ahamed's case was in an appeal from a judgment of the Madras High Court. 

Cause Title: G. Kodeeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [WP(MD) No. 32363 of 2026] 

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: