Madras HC urges Tamil Nadu to issue 'no caste, no religion' certificates
text_fields
Chennai: The Madras High Court has urged the Tamil Nadu government to pass a Government Order (G.O.) authorizing revenue officials to issue ‘no caste, no religion’ certificates to applicants who formally request them.
A division bench comprising Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar made the recommendation while setting aside a single judge’s earlier refusal to direct a tahsildar to issue such certificates to the family members of petitioner H Santhosh from Tirupattur district. The bench ordered the authorities to process the family's applications and issue the certificates within a month.
Praising the petitioner’s initiative, the bench said, “This would promote the prohibition of caste-based discrimination in the long run and could serve as an eye-opener for like-minded citizens.” The court described the efforts as “laudable”, especially in a society where caste and religion still significantly influence public life, despite constitutional provisions against discrimination.
The judges also criticized the state’s argument that tahsildars are not empowered to issue such certificates due to the absence of a G.O. They called the claim “paradoxical”, pointing out that such certificates have already been issued in districts like Tirupattur, Coimbatore, and Ambattur.
The court noted that the constitutional right to freedom of religion under Article 25 includes the freedom of conscience and the right not to adhere to any faith. It stressed that the absence of a specific rule or G.O. cannot override this constitutional guarantee. “Revenue authorities cannot wriggle out of this constitutional obligation by quoting the absence of any particular rule,” the bench remarked.
The bench also observed that Article 25 allows the state to enact laws for social reform, even if they interfere with certain religious practices. Therefore, the state has a constitutional duty to uphold individuals' freedom to choose, or reject, religious and caste identities.
Advocates SN Subramani and T Nixon represented the appellant in the case.
