Issue ‘no caste no religion' certificates to those who ask: Madras High Court
A division bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar, setting aside the earlier order, directed the Tirupattur District Collector and the concerned Tahsildar to issue the certificate to the petitioner within a month. The court also called upon the Tamil Nadu government to pass a Government Order (GO) enabling the issuance of such certificates to all eligible applicants who approach the Revenue Department.In its observations, the bench said, 'While the Constitution of India prohibits caste-based discrimination, caste and religion still play a significant role in social life, politics, education and employment through reservation policies.' The judges described the petitioner's decision to renounce caste and religious identity as 'laudable' and stated that such efforts could help promote the prohibition of caste-based discrimination and act as an 'eye-opener' for like-minded citizens.advertisementThe court also dismissed the Revenue Department's argument that Tahsildars lack the power to issue such certificates due to the absence of a Government Order, calling the stance 'paradoxical'. The bench noted that certificates had been issued by Tahsildars in Tirupattur, Coimbatore and Ambattur in the past. It held that constitutional mandates, particularly under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, could not be overridden by administrative inaction.The court further observed that Article 25, while guaranteeing freedom of religion, also permits the state to legislate for social welfare and reform, even if such laws interfere with religious practices. In this context, the state has a constitutional obligation to respect the freedom of conscience of individuals who choose not to identify with any religion or caste.
IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Collectors shall form panels to ensure resources meant for public use reach all: HC
District administrations, as part of their essential duties, should constitute committees in each village panchayat to ensure resources dedicated to public use are accessible to all without any discrimination on the basis of caste, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed. Justice R.N. Manjula observed that the government had got a bounden duty to ensure the effective implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 21 of the Act spoke about the duty of the government to ensure the effective implementation of the Act. Earlier, the court took a serious view of caste discrimination reported in Thalaivankottai in Tenkasi district, where Scheduled Caste people had to wait to collect their share of water from a public tap till the water needs of the other communities were fulfilled. The court had directed the Tenkasi Collector to take appropriate steps and ensure that such discrimination did not take place. Pursuant to the court order, the Tenkasi Collector, in a report, submitted that 17 public water tap connections had been provided and water was being supplied for three hours every day. It was also submitted that a committee comprising the panchayat president, panchayat secretary and Zonal Assistant Block Development Officer had been formed to ensure that there was no discrimination between people belonging to different communities. The court observed that Section 3(1)(za) (A) of the Act included obstruction and prevention of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from using a common public area or resources as an offence. The court directed the Directorates of Municipal Administration and Town Panchayats and the District Collectors, under the supervision of the Chief Secretary and with the coordination of the Director General of Police, to implement the objectives of Section 21 of the Act, especially in the matter of sharing water and file a report. A healthy atmosphere in rural and urban communities should be ensured in order to achieve the objective of the Act, the court observed and posted the matter for hearing to August 21.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Caste killing: investigation will be completed in 60 days, Tamil Nadu government informs High Court
The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday informed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that the investigation in the caste killing of Kavin Selvaganesh would be completed in two months. The court was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by S.M.A. Pon Gandhimathinathan of Thoothukudi district, who had sought a direction for a CB-CID probe, to be monitored by a Tirunelveli District Judge. More relief sought The petitioner had also sought a direction to the government to provide an adequate compensation of ₹50 lakh under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules to the family of the deceased and to bring in a separate Act to prevent 'honour' killings. He said the accused, Surjith, the brother of the girl Kavin loved, and his father Saravanan, a sub-inspector, had been arrested, while Surjith's mother, Krishnakumari, also a sub-inspector, had not been arrested yet. (The accused belongs to the Most Backward Caste). According to the petitioner, Chandrasekar, father of Kavin, had alleged that inspector of police Kasipandian had earlier threatened Kavin with dire consequences and acted in a biased manner in favour of the family of the accused. Given the fact that the parents of the accused are sub-inspectors and given the role of Kasipandian, a District Judge should monitor the investigation, the petitioner said. Additional Advocate-General M. Ajmal Khan submitted that the investigation would be completed by the CB-CID in 60 days and the final report would be filed. An interim compensation of ₹6 lakh had been handed over to the family. A case was booked under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. No offender would be allowed to go scot free, it was submitted. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete said the CB-CID had started the investigation and the petitioner had not raised any serious allegation against the investigating team. Giving a direction at this point of time would affect the independence of the investigating officers, the Bench said, posting the matter for further hearing after eight weeks. Panel reviews action In Tirunelveli, the Chairperson and Members of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes met Tirunelveli Collector R. Sukumar and top police officers on Tuesday to review the action being taken following the murder of Kavin Selvaganesh. He was killed on July 27. The eight-member Commission, led by its Chairperson Kishor Makwana, met the Collector, top police officers, and the heads of various departments. Dr. Sukumar explained the circumstances that led to the murder and the action taken by the police. The police also presented a report based on their investigation. Inspector-General of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights, B. Shamoondeswari; Tirunelveli City Police Commissioner Santosh Hadimani; Deputy Commissioners of Police Vinodh Shantharam and Prasanna Kumar; District Revenue Officer M. Suganya; and other officials took part at the meeting. The Commission members had planned to visit the spot where Kavin was murdered. But the plan was dropped. After the meeting, they went to Arumugamangalam to meet the family of the deceased.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Why Supreme Court's 'true Indian' rebuke to Rahul Gandhi holds no legal binding
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, stemming from remarks he made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December Congress MP had claimed that the Chinese army occupied 2,000 sq km of Indian territory and was 'thrashing' Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. These statements led to a defamation complaint from a retired defence official in Lucknow, alleging the remarks insulted and tarnished the image of the Indian Army. The Allahabad High Court had earlier declined to quash the complaint, after which Gandhi had appealed to the Supreme the Supreme Court hearing, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih made pointed oral observations, questioning the senior Congress leader about the credibility and basis of his statements, remarking, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say all this.' The bench also asked why such claims weren't raised in Parliament instead of on social media or public forums. Despite these oral remarks, the court granted a stay on the ongoing lower court proceedings, awaiting further consideration. Oral observations are comments, queries, or remarks made by judges during court hearings. They are intended as a means for the bench to seek clarification, test the arguments of counsel, and engage in a dynamic examination of the facts, reasoning, and broader implications of a case. Such observations are usually not a part of the official judicial record or operative orders of the foundational principle governing the authority of judicial pronouncements in India is derived directly from the Constitution. Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950, states that "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.'The operative phrase in this provision is "law declared." This is universally interpreted to mean the formal, written, and reasoned judgment that is officially pronounced and signed by the judges after due deliberation. The process of "declaring law" is a formal act, not a casual or conversational observations made by a judge during a hearing do not meet the standard of "law declared." These remarks are part of the deliberative process itself; they are not the final product of that process. They are tentative, exploratory, and often made to test the arguments presented by counsel, to seek clarification, or to express a provisional thought. Therefore, such observations fall outside the mandate of Article 141 and do not carry the force of binding within a final, written judgment, not every statement made by the court has the same legal weight. A judgment is primarily composed of two elements: the ratio decidendi and obiter ratio decidendi, or the "reason for the decision," is the core legal principle or rule of law that was necessary for the court to arrive at its final decision. It is this specific part of the judgment that constitutes the "law declared" and is binding on lower obiter dicta, meaning "things said by the way," are observations made by the court that are not essential to the final determination of the case. These might include hypothetical scenarios, discussions on broader legal principles not directly at issue, or passing comments. While obiter dicta from the Supreme Court are given immense respect and have significant persuasive value, they are not strictly binding as this established hierarchy within a formal written judgment, it follows logically that oral remarks made during a hearing, which are not even recorded as part of the judgment, rank significantly lower than obiter dicta. They are pre-decisional dialogues and cannot be elevated to the status of either ratio decidendi or even formal obiter IS THE PURPOSE OF ORAL OBSERVATIONS?While legally non-binding, oral observations made by judges serve as an integral part of the dynamic dialogue between the bench and the often raise contrary views or ask hypothetical questions during the course of a hearing to test the strength and coherence of an argument. Often, oral observations are also a means for the bench to seek more information or clarity on a particular fact or point of importantly, however, oral remarks made during the course of a hearing can provide valuable insight into the preliminary thinking of the judges on the bench. This often allows lawyers to focus their arguments on the primary areas of concern for the these observations are open to change. A judge may express a preliminary view orally but may come to an entirely different conclusion after hearing further arguments or upon deeper reflection during the writing of the observations made by the Supreme Court often make it to the news headlines. In July 2022, the Supreme Court made strong remarks blaming BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for 'making the country burn' due to her televised remarks. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala said Sharma was 'single handedly responsible' for the violence and outrage arising out of her remarks and said she should 'apologize to the whole country'. None of these statements formed part of the official order of the recently, in February 2025 the Supreme Court chastised YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia for a controversial joke stating 'there is something very dirty in his mind'. The bench called his comments 'disgusting', 'filthy' and 'insulting', though none of these observations made it to the final written order, while the Supreme Court's sharp oral rebuke of Rahul Gandhi carries undeniable rhetorical and political impact, it does not amount to a legal determination of his patriotism; nor does it have any binding effect on the definition of a 'true Indian.'As explained above, the only authoritative doctrine to emerge from a case is found in the court's final judgment, not in real-time exchanges during arguments. This is a distinction that is not just technical, it's foundational to India's judicial discipline.- EndsMust Watch
