Introduction:
In a progressive and socially significant ruling, the Madras High Court addressed the plea filed by Radhakrishnan Parthiban (Petitioner), a noted cine actor, against the District Collector and Revenue Authorities (Respondents) seeking issuance of a “No Caste No Religion” certificate. The petition was necessitated due to the inaction of the concerned authorities despite a prior judicial directive mandating the issuance of such certificates within a stipulated period.
The petitioner approached the Court after his application, initially submitted to the Tahsildar at Velachery and later transferred to the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur on jurisdictional grounds, remained unaddressed. The case thus presented an important question concerning the right of an individual to renounce caste and religion, and the corresponding duty of the State to recognize and formally acknowledge such a choice.
The matter was heard by Justice M. Dhandapani, who examined not only the petitioner’s individual claim but also the broader legal and constitutional framework supporting such recognition. The Court also took into account a prior Division Bench judgment which had directed the State to empower revenue authorities to issue “No Caste No Religion” certificates.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, through his counsel, advanced a compelling case rooted in personal autonomy, constitutional values, and social reform.
At the outset, the petitioner submitted that although he was born into a Hindu family and had been assigned the caste identity of “Gavara,” he had consciously chosen to renounce both his caste and religious identity upon attaining majority. He emphasized that this decision was not merely personal but also ideological, reflecting his consistent advocacy for a casteless and religion-less society.
The petitioner highlighted that throughout his career in cinema, he had actively promoted ideals of equality, social unity, and the eradication of caste-based distinctions. His application for the certificate was therefore not motivated by any personal gain but by a desire to formalize his identity in accordance with his beliefs.
It was further submitted that the petitioner was 67 years old and not seeking any employment, political office, or reservation-based benefits. He clarified that the certificate was not intended to secure any advantage but to reflect his genuine renunciation of caste and religion.
The petitioner also argued that such renunciation does not affect his citizenship, residential status, or legal rights, and therefore, there was no legal impediment to the issuance of the certificate.
Importantly, the petitioner relied on a prior Division Bench judgment of the High Court, which had directed the State to enable revenue authorities to issue “No Caste No Religion” certificates. He contended that in light of this binding precedent, the authorities were under a legal obligation to process his application within a reasonable time.
The petitioner argued that the continued inaction of the authorities amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of conscience and expression, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Arguments by the Respondents:
The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not substantially dispute the petitioner’s entitlement to the certificate.
Instead, the State submitted that the petitioner’s representation would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a specified timeframe, namely on or before April 29, 2026.
The respondents explained that the delay in processing the application was due to administrative reasons, including the transfer of the application from one jurisdiction to another. However, no substantive objection was raised against the petitioner’s claim.
The State also acknowledged the earlier Division Bench judgment and did not contest its applicability to the present case.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the submissions and examining the legal position, the High Court issued a clear and categorical direction in favour of the petitioner.
1. Recognition of Right to Renounce Caste and Religion
The Court implicitly recognized the right of an individual to renounce caste and religion, noting that such a decision falls within the domain of personal autonomy and freedom of conscience.
The Court appreciated the petitioner’s stance, observing that his application was rooted in a genuine commitment to social reform and equality.
2. Reliance on Division Bench Judgment
A key aspect of the judgment was the Court’s reliance on the earlier Division Bench decision, which had directed the State to empower revenue authorities to issue “No Caste No Religion” certificates.
The Court held that this precedent was binding and that the authorities were obligated to act in accordance with it.
3. Administrative Inaction Cannot Defeat Rights
The Court took note of the delay in processing the petitioner’s application and emphasized that administrative inaction cannot be allowed to defeat a legally recognized right.
It observed that once the legal framework and judicial directions are in place, the authorities must act promptly and efficiently.
4. Direction to Issue Certificate
In light of the above, the Court directed the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur to issue the “No Caste No Religion” certificate to the petitioner on or before April 29, 2026.
The Court thus ensured that the petitioner’s right was not merely recognized but also effectively enforced.
5. Closure of Proceedings
With the issuance of the direction, the Court disposed of the petition, bringing the matter to a close.