Madras HC Admits Plea Challenging OBC Status of Christian Converts, Calls for Deep Constitutional Scrutiny [Read Order]

Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has admitted a writ petition challenging the inclusion of several Christian communities and converts to Christianity in the lists of Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes under Schedule I of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, observing that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case warranting “deep constitutional scrutiny”.

A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi was hearing W.P.(MD) No. 32363 of 2026 filed by G. Kodeeswaran, a youth from the Kallar community, a notified Backward Class, who has applied for the Combined Civil Services Examination-IV (Group IV Services) under Notification No. 11/2026 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He seeks a declaration that Entries 17, 18, 66, 67, 78 (to the extent it covers Christian Nadar, Christian Shanar and Christian Gramani) and 138 of Part A, and Entries 20, 31, 32 and 33 of Part C, are ultra vires Articles 14, 15(1) and 16 of the Constitution, and a direction to delete them from the Schedule and the lists of Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities. The State, through the Backward Classes and Human Resources Management departments, and the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission are respondents, and the Court suo motu impleaded the TNPSC Secretary as the fourth respondent.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Swaminathan began with the observation:

“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.”

The Court added that merely because some entities have enjoyed reservation for a few decades, it does not follow that their original inclusion was constitutionally justified, and that when a challenge is mounted, the Government is obliged to demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that inclusion or retention is warranted. It also noted that counsel’s assertion that a Brahmin who converts and joins the CSI denomination could enjoy OBC status under the present framework, if true, would justify “a serious re-think”.

The petitioner’s case, as recorded, is that the First Backward Classes Commission (Sattanathan, 1970) declined to examine the claims of Christian communities, and the Second Commission (Ambashankar) in its 1985 report placed “Christian (Converts from B.C.)” among communities not eligible for inclusion. Despite this, G.O.Ms.No.558 dated 24.02.1986 included converts from Hindu Backward Class communities, and Christian Nadars, Shanars and Gramanis had been included by G.O.Ms.No.2029 dated 05.08.1983, while that Commission’s inquiry was still on. Latin Catholics and CSI Christians were allegedly carried over on the basis of concessions in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State, with no quantifiable data of backwardness collected.

On the law, the petition relies on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217), M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2025) 1 SCC 1, Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC 697 and Union of India v. Rohith Nathan(2026) 6 SCC 1, for the propositions that the State’s opinion under Article 16(4) must rest on objective, quantifiable data, that historical concessions cannot sustain a classification, and that arbitrary identification excludes genuine claimants.

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed (2026 SCC OnLine SC 2187), an extract of which the Court reproduced, stating that no entitlement under Article 16(4) predicated on a particular Hindu social order can be claimed on the basis of antecedent membership after conversion to Islam, Christianity or any other non-Hindu social order, as such conversion “severs the legal foundation of an entitlement”.

The petitioner further points to anomalies. Entry 18 of Part A covers members of the Church of South India, described as a body of about four million members governed by a Synod, so that anyone could claim Backward Class status by baptism, which, it is argued, outsources a statutory status to a private religious body, contrary to Kumari Madhuri Patil (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Vishwa Lochan Madan (2014) 7 SCC 707. Under Entry 17, a Scheduled Caste convert to Christianity is treated as Backward Class, in line with the Explanation to Section 3(w) of the 2016 Act, whereas under Entries 31 to 33 of Part C, converts from certain Most Backward Classes retain MBC status, so that an erstwhile Scheduled Caste convert is placed at a disadvantage.

The Bench held that the factual assertions regarding the lack of objective data, the alleged disregard of the recommendations of expert commissions and the arbitrary nature of the classification “raise serious doubts” about the constitutional validity of the entries. It stressed that this is a prima facie view and made no final finding. The petition was admitted, notice was ordered returnable in eight weeks, and as the petitioner stated that recruitment processes are ongoing, he was permitted to file an interim application.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Suresh.

For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. M. Kannan, Special Government Pleader.

For Respondent 4: Mr. V. Panneerselvam.

Case Title: G. Kodeeswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., W.P.(MD) No. 32363 of 2026

[Read Order]