Madras HC admits plea against inclusion of Christian communities in BC, MBC lists

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench in Madurai has admitted a petition challenging the inclusion of several Christian communities and converts to Christianity in Tamil Nadu's Other Backwards Classes (OBC) list, observing that serious questions have been raised over the constitutional validity of their classification in the absence of adequate empirical data establishing their social and educational backwardness.

“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,” said a Division Bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi.

It further observed that when a challenge was mounted, the government was obliged to demonstrate to the Court's satisfaction that it was constitutionally warranted.

The petition was filed by G Kodeeswaran, a member of the Kallar community, who has applied for the TNPSC Group IV examination. He contended that reservation benefits available to genuinely backward communities were being diluted by the inclusion of certain Christian communities and converts without an adequate empirical assessment of their backwardness.

The judges also observed that under the present statutory framework, even a Brahmin who converted to Christianity and joined the Church of South India (CSI) denomination could claim OBC status. “If this assertion is true, then a serious re-think is certainly called for,” the judges observed.

The petitioner challenged specific entries in Schedule I of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, covering several Christian communities classified under the BC and MBC categories.

He pointed out that the Sattanathan Commission (1970) had declined to examine the claims of Christian communities for inclusion in the BC list. The Ambashankar Commission (1985) had also rejected the inclusion of Christian converts from BC communities, placing them among the communities found ineligible for inclusion. However, the petitioner alleged that the state government subsequently included these communities in 1983 and 1986 without adequate quantifiable data to establish their social and educational backwardness.

The petitioner contended that the fundamental right to equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) to genuine members of the Backwards Classes could not be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. He relied on a recent order of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rohith Nathan (2026), in which it was held that arbitrary identification of a class could result in the illegal exclusion of genuine claimants from reservation benefits.

The Court said it was satisfied that the petitioner had established a prima facie case warranting deep constitutional scrutiny. The factual assertions regarding the lack of objective data, the alleged disregard of the recommendations of expert commissions and the arbitrary nature of the classifications raised serious doubts about the constitutional validity of the impugned entries in Schedule I of the 2016 Act, it observed.

The Court ordered notice, returnable in eight weeks. Since recruitment processes were under way, the petitioner was permitted to file an interim application seeking urgent relief.