Reservation Policy of Tamil Nadu – Communal G.O.s, Champakam Dorairajan & First Amendment, 69% Act 45 of 1994 & Ninth Schedule, Internal Quotas & EWS | TNPSC Notes

Reservation policy of Tamil Nadu is the system of reserving seats in education and posts in public services for socially and educationally backward communities. Its roots go back to the Communal Government Orders (Communal G.O.s) of the Madras Presidency issued from 1921 under the Justice Party government. After the Supreme Court struck down the Communal G.O. in the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), Parliament added Article 15(4) through the First Amendment. Today Tamil Nadu has a total of 69 per cent reservation, protected by Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994, which the 76th Constitutional Amendment placed in the Ninth Schedule.

தமிழில் படிக்க

These notes are written for TNPSC Group 1, 2/2A and 4 aspirants and are meant to be complete on their own. Reservation policy is a core topic in Development Administration in Tamil Nadu (social justice, welfare of backward classes, SC and ST). Its constitutional side – Articles 15 and 16, the First, 76th and 103rd Amendments, the Ninth Schedule and the major court cases – belongs to Indian Polity; and the Justice Party, the Communal G.O.s and the role of Periyar belong to History, Culture, Heritage and Socio-Political Movements of Tamil Nadu. Every number below is given with its source and year. Read each section, then use the tables, the quick revision table and the key points at the end.

Background: Why Reservation Began in the Madras Presidency

In the early twentieth century, leaders of the non-Brahmin movement in the Madras Presidency argued that a small section of society held most posts in government service and most seats in higher education, while the large majority of communities had very little share. The South Indian Liberal Federation (Justice Party), formed in 1916, demanded communal representation – a share in posts for every community. When the Justice Party formed the government under dyarchy (1920), it used government orders to put this idea into practice.

• Idea: posts and seats should be shared among communities, so that every group has a place in administration and education.

The Communal G.O.s (1921 – 1928)

• First Communal G.O. – 16 September 1921: issued by the Justice Party government. It asked departments to report appointments community-wise, so that the share of each community could be watched. Its implementation was slow.
• Second Communal G.O. – 1922: issued to give effect to the first order and to extend the idea; this too was applied only partly.
• Communal G.O. of the P. Subbarayan ministry (1927–28): the independent ministry of Dr P. Subbarayan, with S. Muthiah Mudaliar as Education Minister, issued the order that actually fixed a share for each community in appointments. Sources differ on the year of this order: some give 1927, others 1928.

Under the Subbarayan-era order, appointments were made in units of 12. The distribution, as given in historical accounts of the order (Inmathi, 2021; The Hardline), was (one account links the same 12-unit scheme to the 1921 order itself):

Exam tip: the first Communal G.O. is dated 16 September 1921 (Justice Party ministry); the order that fixed the 12-unit share came under the Subbarayan ministry with Muthiah Mudaliar as Education Minister.

After Independence: the Champakam Dorairajan Case (1950–51)

The Communal G.O. continued after independence. In 1950 it was used for admission to the State's medical and engineering colleges. As quoted in the Supreme Court judgment (1951), seats were filled in units of 14:

• Petitioners: Champakam Dorairajan (medical college admission) and C. R. Srinivasan (Government Engineering College, Guindy) challenged the G.O. in the Madras High Court, which ruled in their favour in 1950.
• Supreme Court: on 9 April 1951 a seven-judge bench (Chief Justice H. J. Kania presiding; judgment by Justice S. R. Das) dismissed the State's appeals.
• Holding: the Communal G.O. violated Article 29(2) (no citizen shall be denied admission to a State-maintained or State-aided institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them) and was void.
• Directive Principles: the State relied on Article 46; the Court held that Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights.
• Reaction in Madras State: the decision led to protests across the State; the Dravidar Kazhagam under Periyar demanded the restoration of communal reservation. The State's Policy Note 2024-25 links the First Amendment to this agitation led by Thanthai Periyar.

The First Constitutional Amendment (1951)

• Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 came into force on 18 June 1951.
• It inserted Article 15(4): nothing in Article 15 or in Article 29(2) shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The Bill was examined by a Select Committee whose members included Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr B. R. Ambedkar (Select Committee report, 25 May 1951).
• The same amendment also added Articles 31A and 31B and created the Ninth Schedule (first used for land-reform laws) – the Schedule that would later protect Tamil Nadu's 69 per cent law.
• Note: Article 16(4) (reservation in posts) was already in the original Constitution; Article 15(4) covered education and other special provisions.

Growth of Reservation in Tamil Nadu (1951 – 1990)

After Article 15(4), Madras State restored reservation under the new constitutional basis. The quantum was raised step by step until it reached 69 per cent in 1990.

• 1979 income ceiling: in 1979 the AIADMK government introduced an annual income ceiling for BC reservation. After the 1980 Lok Sabha election results, the income criterion was withdrawn and the BC share was raised to 50 per cent.
• 1987 agitation: the Vanniyar Sangam, led by Dr S. Ramadoss, organised agitations in northern Tamil Nadu in 1987 demanding separate reservation; 21 persons died in police firing (as per PTI report, 2021). In 2021 the State announced a memorial for them in Villupuram district.
• 1989 – MBC/DNC category: the separate 20 per cent quota for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities was created in 1989.
• 1990 – 69 per cent: as per the State's Policy Note 2024-25, "the existing 69 percent reservation has been under implementation in the State since 1990".

Backward Classes Commissions of Tamil Nadu

Indra Sawhney and the 50 Per Cent Ceiling (1992)

• On 16 November 1992, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (the Mandal case), the Supreme Court held that reservation under Article 16(4) should not, as a rule, exceed 50 per cent.
• The Madras High Court allowed Tamil Nadu's existing policy for the 1993-94 academic year, but said reservation must come down to 50 per cent from 1994-95; an interim order of the Supreme Court also said admissions should not exceed 50 per cent (as recorded in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 76th Amendment Bill).
• On 9 November 1993 a special session of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Union Government to amend the Constitution; an all-party meeting followed on 26 November 1993.

Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 and the 76th Amendment

To keep the 69 per cent, the State passed a Bill in 1993 and sent it to the President under Article 31C. Its full name is the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993, numbered Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994. The J. Jayalalithaa government was in office at the time.

• I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (11 January 2007): a nine-judge bench held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) can be tested against the basic structure. Act 45 of 1994 was added in 1994, so it is open to such review.
• Pending challenge: petitions questioning the 69 per cent law have been pending before the Supreme Court for many years; the 69 per cent continues to be implemented.
• Extension to private institutions: a 2006 State law (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2006) extended reservation to private educational institutions other than minority institutions (Act text; Policy Note 2024-25).

Present Reservation Structure in Tamil Nadu

Remember: the 30 per cent for Backward Classes in Act 45 of 1994 is today split into 26.5 per cent (BC) and 3.5 per cent (BC Muslims); the 18 per cent for SC includes the 3 per cent preferential share for Arunthathiyars. As per the State's Policy Note 2024-25, more than 88 per cent of the State's population belongs to the BC, MBC, DNC, SC and ST groups.

Internal (Sub-) Reservations

Backward Class Muslims – 3.5 per cent (2007)

• Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 2007 gives 3.5 per cent reservation to Backward Class Muslims within the 30 per cent for Backward Classes, on the recommendation of the Backward Classes Commission.
• In force from 15 September 2007 (as per Policy Note 2024-25).

Arunthathiyars – 3 per cent within SC (2009)

• Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009 – Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 2009.
• Came into force on 29 April 2009; it gives 3 per cent preferential reservation to Arunthathiyars within the 18 per cent for Scheduled Castes (as recorded in a TNPSC-published Madras High Court order of 8 December 2009, and The Federal). Section 4 of the Act, as quoted in that order, expresses the share as sixteen per cent of the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes – roughly 3 per cent of the total.
• On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court (State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh) held, by majority, that States may sub-classify Scheduled Castes, overruling the earlier E. V. Chinnaiah ruling; Tamil Nadu welcomed the verdict as supporting its Arunthathiyar internal reservation (The Federal; Deccan Herald, 2024).

Vanniyar Internal Reservation (2021) and the Supreme Court Verdict (2022)

• The 2021 Act: in February 2021, the Tamil Nadu Assembly (AIADMK government, Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami) passed a law (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2021; Governor's assent 26 February 2021) dividing the 20 per cent MBC/DNC quota into three parts.
• Split (as per the Act text; The Week, 2021): Part I – Vanniakula Kshatriya 10.5%; Part II – MBC/DNC 7%; Part III – other MBC 2.5%.
• Implementation: the DMK government that took office in May 2021 issued orders to implement it in July 2021.
• Madras High Court: on 1 November 2021 a Division Bench of the High Court struck the Act down; its reasons included the absence of quantifiable data and, in its view, the State's lack of legislative competence after the 102nd Amendment (the Supreme Court later differed on the competence point).
• Supreme Court: on 31 March 2022 (Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal; Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B. R. Gavai) the Court upheld the High Court's conclusion.

• After the verdict: the question of internal reservation within MBC/DNC, in the light of the Supreme Court judgment dated 31 March 2022, was placed in the terms of reference of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission (Policy Note 2024-25).
• Present position: the Citizen Charter 2026-27 shows MBC & DNC as a single 20 per cent category.

EWS Reservation and Tamil Nadu

• 103rd Amendment: the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 (assent and publication 12 January 2019) inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), allowing up to 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) not covered by the existing reservations.
• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (7 November 2022): a five-judge bench upheld the amendment by a 3:2 majority.
• Tamil Nadu's stand: an all-party meeting convened by the State Government on 12 November 2022 passed a resolution rejecting the 103rd Amendment and decided to seek a review; the State said it would not implement the EWS quota in State posts and admissions and would continue the 69 per cent (as reported, November 2022). The AIADMK and the BJP did not attend the meeting.

Key People and Bodies

Significance and Debates

• Long history: Tamil Nadu is one of the earliest regions to apply community-wise representation in government (from 1921), and its demand shaped Article 15(4).
• Sub-classification: the MBC/DNC category (1989), BC Muslims (2007) and Arunthathiyars (2009) show the use of internal quotas to spread benefits among groups.
• Issues debated: the 50 per cent ceiling and the pending challenge; the need for current caste data (the Policy Note notes that the last full caste census was in 1931); the creamy-layer question; and the basis for internal reservation, as seen in the 2022 Vanniyar judgment.

Writing Mains Answers on Reservation Policy of Tamil Nadu (Group 1 / Group 2)

Descriptive papers ask about the evolution, constitutional basis and present status of reservation in Tamil Nadu. Use these frameworks and support each point with a fact and its source from the notes above.

Evolution of reservation policy in Tamil Nadu (about 200–250 words)

• Introduction: community representation began with the Communal G.O. of 16 September 1921 under the Justice Party.
• Constitutional turning point: Champakam Dorairajan (9 April 1951, Article 29(2)) → First Amendment, Article 15(4) (in force 18 June 1951).
• Expansion: 41% → 49% (1971, Sattanathan) → 68% (1980) → MBC/DNC 20% (1989) → 69% with ST 1% (1990).
• Protection: Indra Sawhney (16 November 1992) → Act 45 of 1994 (assent 19 July 1994) → 76th Amendment, Ninth Schedule entry 257A.
• Refinement: BC Muslims 3.5% (2007), Arunthathiyars 3% within SC (2009).
• Conclusion: present 69% (Citizen Charter 2026-27); issues – 50% ceiling, data, sub-classification.

How does Tamil Nadu maintain 69 per cent reservation despite the 50 per cent ceiling? (about 150 words)

• Indra Sawhney (1992) set the 50% rule; Madras High Court and Supreme Court interim orders followed.
• Assembly resolution (9 November 1993); Bill sent to the President under Article 31C.
• Act 45 of 1994 – Sections 4 and 5 fix 69%; Section 2 links it to Articles 38, 39(b)(c) and 46.
• 76th Amendment (1994) – entry 257A, Ninth Schedule; Article 31B protection.
• Limit: I. R. Coelho (2007) – post-24 April 1973 Ninth Schedule laws open to basic-structure review; challenge pending.

Internal reservation: Arunthathiyar quota and the Vanniyar judgment (about 150 words)

• Purpose: to spread benefits to groups that remain under-represented within a larger category.
• Arunthathiyars: Act 4 of 2009, 3% preferential within SC 18%; sub-classification of SCs upheld by the Supreme Court on 1 August 2024.
• Vanniyar: 2021 Act (10.5% / 7% / 2.5%); struck down by Madras High Court (1 November 2021) and Supreme Court (31 March 2022) – caste cannot be the sole basis; no substantial basis shown.

Practice: Match the Following

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Article violated in Champakam: Article 29(2) – not Article 16(4). Article 15(4) was added after the case.
• Article 15(4) vs 16(4): 16(4) (posts) was in the original Constitution; 15(4) (special provisions, including education) came by the First Amendment in 1951.
• Act number vs year: the law is the '1993 Act' by name but Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 by number (assent 19 July 1994).
• 76th, not 73rd/74th: the Ninth Schedule entry came by the 76th Amendment (1994); the 73rd/74th are about local bodies.
• BC 30% vs 26.5%: Act 45 of 1994 says BC 30%; since 2007 it is BC 26.5% + BC Muslims 3.5%.
• Arunthathiyar 3% is within SC 18%, not an addition to 69%.
• Vanniyar 10.5% was within MBC/DNC 20%, not an addition; it is no longer in force after 31 March 2022.
• 69% since 1990, not since 1994 – the 1994 Act protected an existing 69%.
• Sattanathan = first BC Commission; Ambasankar = second.

Quick Revision Table

TNPSC Key Points (PYQ-style facts)

• First Communal G.O.: 16 September 1921, Justice Party government; second: 1922.
• Champakam Dorairajan: 9 April 1951, seven judges, Article 29(2) violated; DPSP cannot override Fundamental Rights.
• First Amendment: in force 18 June 1951; Article 15(4); also Articles 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule.
• First BC Commission: A. N. Sattanathan (report 1970); second: J. A. Ambasankar (1982); permanent TN BC Commission from 15 March 1993.
• TN Act 45 of 1994: assent 19 July 1994; Sections 4 (education) and 5 (posts) – 69%.
• 76th Amendment, 1994: Ninth Schedule entry 257A; protection under Article 31B.
• Present: BC 26.5%, BCM 3.5%, MBC/DNC 20%, SC 18%, ST 1% = 69% (Citizen Charter 2026-27).
• BC Muslims 3.5%: Act 33 of 2007, from 15 September 2007.
• Arunthathiyars 3% within SC: Act 4 of 2009, from 29 April 2009.
• EWS: 103rd Amendment, Articles 15(6) and 16(6), up to 10%; upheld 7 November 2022 (3:2).

Frequently Asked Questions

How did Tamil Nadu's reservation reach 69 per cent?

After the First Amendment (1951) the Madras State gave 25 per cent to Backward Classes and 16 per cent to SC/ST (41 per cent). In 1971, after the Sattanathan Commission report, this became 31 + 18 = 49 per cent; in 1980 the BC share was raised to 50 per cent (68 per cent); in 1989 a separate 20 per cent for MBC/DNC was carved out of the BC 50 per cent; and in 1990 a separate 1 per cent for Scheduled Tribes took the total to 69 per cent.

How is the 69 per cent reservation protected after the 50 per cent ceiling of Indra Sawhney?

Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994), which received the President's assent on 19 July 1994. The Constitution (Seventy-sixth Amendment) Act, 1994 placed it in the Ninth Schedule as entry 257A, giving it the protection of Article 31B. Challenges to the law have been pending in the Supreme Court.

What is the present break-up of reservation in Tamil Nadu?

As per the BC & MBC Welfare Department Citizen Charter 2026-27: Backward Classes 26.5 per cent, Backward Class Muslims 3.5 per cent, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities 20 per cent, Scheduled Castes 18 per cent (with 3 per cent preferential reservation for Arunthathiyars inside it) and Scheduled Tribes 1 per cent – a total of 69 per cent.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down the 10.5 per cent Vanniyar internal reservation?

On 31 March 2022 a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B. R. Gavai upheld the Madras High Court's judgment of 1 November 2021. The Court held that the State had legislative competence and that caste can be the starting point for internal reservation, but it cannot be the sole basis; since no substantial basis was shown for treating the Vanniakula Kshatriyas differently from the other 115 MBC/DNC communities, the 2021 Act violated Articles 14, 15 and 16.

What was the Champakam Dorairajan case?

In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on 9 April 1951 held the Communal G.O. on admissions to Madras medical and engineering colleges void because it violated Article 29(2); Parliament then passed the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which came into force on 18 June 1951 and added Article 15(4).

Practise this topic with our free Tamil quizzes, follow daily current affairs (English) and Tamil current affairs, and see our TNPSC PYQ books such as the Tamil Nadu Administration PYQ book and the General Tamil PYQ book. For classroom and online TNPSC coaching at Gandhipuram, Coimbatore and Anna Nagar, Madurai, see our TNPSC course page or call 99941 46662 (Coimbatore) / 73059 47122 (Madurai).