Introduction:

The case Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 294, Crl.M.P(MD) No.8288 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD) No.712 of 2025) came before the Madras High Court with serious concerns relating to social discrimination in access to public resources. Justice RN Manjula presided over the matter, which was filed after shocking instances were reported where Scheduled Caste community members were made to wait for their turn at public water taps until other communities had finished drawing water. The petition brought to light issues of unequal access, social segregation, and violation of basic constitutional rights in Tamil Nadu villages. The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. V. Kathirvelu appearing for Mr. K. Prabhu, urged the court to intervene to protect the rights of marginalized communities. On the other side, the State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, assisted by Government Advocate Mr. K. Gnanasekaran. The petition exposed both administrative inefficiencies and deep-rooted social prejudices, leading the High Court not only to pass specific directions but also to emphasize the need for a long-term change in public mindset to achieve equality in the true spirit of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s primary grievance revolved around the discriminatory practices prevalent in the sharing of public resources such as water. It was argued that Scheduled Caste members were systematically denied equal access to basic facilities, including drinking water from public taps, a practice that clearly amounted to a violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner highlighted the degrading practice whereby Dalit families had to wait until members of other communities had drawn water, leaving them with inadequate access to this essential resource. Counsel submitted that this was not an isolated incident but a recurring pattern that reflected entrenched caste-based discrimination. It was further contended that such practices violated the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly Section 21, which imposes obligations on authorities to prevent atrocities and ensure dignity and equality of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe citizens. The petitioner argued that the State had failed in its constitutional and statutory obligations by not ensuring equal access to public resources, despite the existence of laws and policies. The plea stressed that constitutional aspirations such as “unity in diversity” and “social justice” would remain hollow if caste-based barriers continued to dictate how basic resources were shared in villages. The petitioner thus sought strict judicial intervention to ensure not only compliance with legal provisions but also structural changes that would dismantle social discrimination at the ground level.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that significant steps had already been taken to address the petitioner’s concerns. It was argued that the government had acted promptly upon the directions of the High Court in earlier hearings by issuing a Government Order (GO) mandating equal access to public resources across communities. The respondents informed the court that the Principal Secretary had circulated instructions to all subordinate officials under the jurisdiction of the District Collector to ensure that no form of discrimination persisted in accessing public resources such as water taps. These officials were directed to provide a sufficient number of water tap connections in every street, thereby preventing situations where members of one community had to wait for another. The respondents also assured the court that committees had been formed at the local level to supervise compliance with these directions and to ensure equitable distribution. The government emphasized that awareness campaigns were also being considered to sensitize local communities about their constitutional duties and the need for social harmony. Furthermore, the State assured that Section 21 of the SC/ST Act was being implemented effectively and that strict instructions had been issued to ensure accountability of officials in preventing caste-based discrimination. While acknowledging the existence of challenges rooted in social attitudes, the respondents insisted that the government was committed to enforcing equality in practice, and mechanisms had already been put in place to ensure compliance.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice RN Manjula of the Madras High Court delivered a judgment that not only resolved the immediate issue but also touched upon the deeper problem of social mindset that perpetuates discrimination. The court acknowledged the efforts of the State Government, including the issuance of a GO, circulation of compliance orders, directions to subordinate officials, and formation of monitoring committees. These steps, according to the court, indicated the government’s commitment to ensuring equal access to public resources. However, the court went further and observed that legal and administrative directions alone would not suffice in bringing about true equality. What was needed was a fundamental change in societal mindset. The court emphasized that discrimination in sharing public resources violated the basic constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and justice. It reiterated that public resources like water are meant for all, irrespective of caste, creed, or community, and any practice to the contrary was unconstitutional and illegal. The court directed that authorities must ensure that no one is allowed to take undue advantage by collecting excessively large quantities of water to the detriment of others, thereby ensuring fair distribution. Importantly, the court stressed the need for social reformation and called upon the younger generation to actively participate in the process of promoting unity in diversity. Justice Manjula suggested that the model team constituted in Thalaivankottai Village in Tenkasi District, which included young people working collectively to eradicate discrimination, could serve as a role model for replication across districts and panchayat unions in Tamil Nadu. By involving the younger generation, the court hoped to instill constitutional values in future citizens, ensuring that practices of social exclusion would be dismantled over time. Appreciating the proactive measures already taken by the government, the court closed the petition but left behind a strong message: the law can mandate equality, but it is only when people change their mindset that the true vision of “unity in diversity” can be realized.