Govt Has to Demonstrate That OBC List Inclusion Is Warranted: Madras High Court While Admitting Petition Challenging Schedule I Of Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016

The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2016), insofar as it includes the communities Christian Nadar, Christian Shanar and Christian Gramani, Converts to Christianity in Meenavar, Parvatharajakulam, Pattanavar and Sembadavar, Converts to Christianity in Mukkuvar or Mukayar of Part C is ultra vires the Constitution.

The Bench comprising Justice G.R.swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi held, “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”

“We are therefore of the view that the petitioner has established a prima facie case that warrants deep constitutional scrutiny. The factual assertions regarding the lack of objective data, the explicit disregard of the Recommendations of the Expert Commissions, and the arbitrary nature of the classifications raise serious doubts about the constitutional validity of the impugned entries in Schedule I of the 2016 Act”, it added.

Advocate K.Suresh represented the Petitioner, while Special Government Pleader M. Kannan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a youth hailing from the Kallar community, which is a notified Backwards Class, had applied for the Combined Civil Services Examination IV (Group IV Services) pursuant to the Notification No. 11/2026 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Competing for the turns reserved for Backwards Classes, the petitioner approached the Court. It was his case that the reservation pool meant for genuinely backward classes was being unconstitutionally diluted by the inclusion of various Christian denominations and converts, who have never been subjected to any empirical test of social and educational backwardness.

The petitioner also claimed that, in blatant disregard of the findings of the State's own expert body, the executive issued G.O.Ms.No.558 dated February 24, 1986, including all converts to Christianity from the Hindu Backwards Class communities in the list. Similarly, Christian Nadars, Shanars, and Gramanis were inducted vide G.O.Ms.No.2029 dated August 5, 1983, while the Ambashankar Commission was still conducting its inquiry. According to the petitioner, in none of these instances was there any quantifiable data collected to demonstrate the social and educational backwardness of these groups in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Article 16(4) permits reservation solely in favour of a backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The Bench further referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) and Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal (2022) to reiterate that antiquated data or historical concessions cannot sustain a classification under Article 16(4).

The attention of the Court was drawn to the impugned entries revealing some anomalies. Entry 18 of Part A confers Backwards Class status on members of the Church of South India (C.S.I. formerly S.I.U.C.). As per the pleadings of the Petitioner, the CSI is a colossal ecclesiastical institution comprising approximately 4 million members, governed by a central Synod, and possessing vast assets including a reported revenue of over Rs. 3067 crores for the financial year 2024-25. Considering that any individual, including a member belonging to a forward class, can instantly claim Backwards Class status merely by acquiring membership in the CSI through baptism, the Bench stated, “This effectively outsources the determination of statutory reservation status to a private religious body. Such a mechanism directly offends the principles laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, and Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 707, which hold that a private religious/social body cannot be vested with the authority to determine statutory status.”

The Bench further noticed that an erstwhile Scheduled Caste convert, whose ancestors suffered the most egregious forms of historical untouchability, is relegated to the Backwards Class category upon converting to Christianity and, in contrast, an erstwhile MBC convert to the very same faith continues to enjoy the highly sought-after ‘Most Backward Class’ quota. “The State has thus engineered a legal fiction where the SC convertee is structurally disadvantaged in relation to the MBC convertee”, it added.

The Bench further held, “We are therefore of the view that the petitioner has established a prima facie case that warrants deep constitutional scrutiny. The factual assertions regarding the lack of objective data, the explicit disregard of the Recommendations of the Expert Commissions, and the arbitrary nature of the classifications raise serious doubts about the constitutional validity of the impugned entries in Schedule I of the 2016 Act.”

Thus, the Bench admitted the Petition.

Cause Title: G.Kodeeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: WP(MD) No. 32363 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate K.Suresh

Respondent: Special Government Pleader M.Kannan, Advocate V.Panneerselvam

Click here to read/download Order