OBC status is not an eternal matter, says Madras High Court in a major statement

According to a report by The Hindu newspaper, the Madras High Court in an important observation has stated that the OBC (Other Backward Classes) status of any individual or community is not a self-evident or eternal matter. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard the matter on Thursday and clarified that to be included in or retained in the OBC list, a clear case has to be established.

A division bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi stated that just because certain groups or communities have enjoyed the privilege of reservation for a few decades, it does not mean that the original inclusion was constitutionally justified or not. Whenever this is challenged, it becomes the responsibility of the government to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the inclusion or continuation of the concerned community in the OBC list is constitutionally justified.

In this matter, a petition was filed by G. Kodeeswaran of Melur taluk in Madurai district. The petitioner questioned the constitutional validity of Schedule 1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The petition demanded that Christian Nadar, Christian Shanar and Christian Gramani communities, as well as Meenavar, Parvatharajakulam, Pattavar, Sembadavar and Mukkuvar or those who converted to Christianity among Mukkayar, be annulled from the list of backward classes, most backward classes and notified communities.

The court noted that this petition raises serious constitutional questions that strike at the root of reservation jurisprudence in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, a member of the backward class from the Kallar community, had applied for the Combined Civil Services Examination IV (Group IV Services). The petitioner, competing for reserved seats for backward classes, approached the court with a concrete and immediate grievance. He argued that the reservation pool for traditionally backward classes is being weakened by the inclusion of various Christian denominations and converts.

The petitioner's argument was that these communities have never undergone any empirical test of social and educational backwardness mandated by Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution. The court stated that the petitioner has highlighted the inconsistency in the discriminatory treatment meted out to various converted classes. A person who converts to Christianity from a Scheduled Caste is treated as a backward class. The 2016 Act itself acknowledges that a person practicing Christianity cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste.

However, certain Most Backward Classes such as Meenavar, Parvatharajakulam and Mukkuvar who embraced Christianity were allowed to retain that status. The court stated that the petitioner believes that the fundamental freedom of equal opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution for genuine backward classes cannot be sacrificed for political convenience. The court noted that the issues raised by the petitioner demand deep constitutional scrutiny and a notice has been issued to the state government in this matter.