Revenue officials can issue ‘no caste, no community' certificates: Madras High Court
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar said, the very intention of a person to shun religious and caste based identity was a 'laudable' move which, in the long run, would promote prohibition of caste based discrimination.
The orders were passed while reversing an order passed by a single judge who had, in February 2024, refused to direct the Tirupattur Tahsildar to issue 'no caste, no community' certificate to an applicant since the revenue officials had not been empowered to issue such a certificate.
The single judge had appreciated the desire of the applicant H. Vinoth to obtain a certificate from a revenue official certifying that he does not belong to any religion or caste, but refused to issue any such direction to the Tahsildar since the latter lacked the authority to issue the certificate.
Allowing a writ appeal filed by Mr. Vinoth against the single judge's order, the Division Bench said, the single judge appeared to have been 'misguided' by the stand of an Additional Government Pleader that revenue officials were not empowered to issue 'no caste, no community' certificates.
The Division Bench said, the government counsel's stand was paradoxical since at least three copies of 'no caste, no community' certificates issued by the Tirupattur Tahsildar on February 5, 2019, Coimbatore Tahsildar on May 27, 2022, and Ambattur Tahsildar on August 18, 2022, had been produced before the court.
'Even otherwise, when there is a constitutional mandate under Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) of the Constitution, the revenue authorities cannot wriggle out of this constitutional obligation by quoting absence of any rule or G.O. to that effect,' the Bench said.
It directed the Tirupattur Collector and Tahsildar to issue the certificate to the appellant within a month. Authoring the verdict, Justice Ramesh wrote: 'In India, religion and caste are two deeply rooted social identifiers that influence many aspects of life including personal identity, politics and social interactions.'
He went on to state: 'While the Constitution prohibits caste based discrimination, caste and religion still play a significant role in social life, politics, education and employment through reservation policies... The desire of the appellant to shun caste and community is laudable and would be an eye opener for like minded citizens.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Not exercising restraint on social media may lead to state intervention: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said that citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and exercise self-restraint on social media, failing which the state would intervene, The Indian Express reported. The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan also considered framing guidelines to control 'divisive tendencies' on social media platforms, PTI reported. The bench was hearing a plea by Kolkata resident Wajahat Khan who had sought consolidation of first information reports filed against him in several states in connection with his allegedly objectionable posts about Hindu deities on social media. The court cited the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The provision outlines the restrictions that can be placed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The bench said that the restrictions had been placed correctly and that the state can step in when there was a violation. 'We are not speaking about censorship,' Live Law quoted Nagarathna as saying. 'But in the interest of fraternity, secularism and dignity of will have to go into this beyond this petition.' Nagarathna said that one of the fundamental duties of citizens was to uphold the unity and integrity of the country. '…See all these divisive tendencies, at least on social media, must be curbed,' she said. 'But to what extent can the state curb?' She went on to ask: 'Instead, why can't the citizens themselves regulate themselves? Citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression. If they don't then the state will step in and who wants the state to step in? Nobody wants the state to step in.' The bench asked the petitioner's counsel and the state 'to assist vis-à-vis the guidelines to be issued to the citizens to comply'. In March, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to frame regulations to stop the broadcast of programmes that do not meet the 'acceptable moral standards of our society', particularly on social media platforms while ensuring that the measures do not impinge the fundamental right to free speech.
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
Privacy Vs Proof: Supreme Court Verdict On Secret Recordings Reshapes Marital Disputes
Last Updated: While some in the legal fraternity acknowledged the court's attempts to build safeguards, others stressed that it cuts deep into the sanctity of marriage In a judgment that might make couples think twice before whispering secrets at home, the Supreme Court has ruled that secret recordings between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes. The landmark verdict has sent ripples through legal and social circles, with some hailing it as a win for justice and others warning it could turn marriages into surveillance zones. Advocate Amish Aggarwala, a specialist in law relating to marital disputes, welcomed the decision, saying it clarifies murky interpretations of privacy rights and spousal privilege. 'Right to privacy is protection against the State, not against individuals," he asserted, emphasising that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act—often used to withhold spousal testimony—is merely an exception, not a blanket shield. Adding her voice to the chorus of support, advocate Tarini K Nayak called the decision 'valid and timely". She argued that the judgment does not violate individual privacy since the use of recordings is confined to legal proceedings and subject to judicial scrutiny. 'Privacy must be balanced with accountability. The court has ensured that the interests of justice are prioritised without turning the bedroom into a courtroom by default," Nayak said. But not everyone is convinced that this legal precedent is marital bliss. Advocate-on-Record Tanya Srivastava warned that it opens a Pandora's box in already delicate matrimonial cases. 'It's a dangerous precedent. I've seen clients provoke their partners just to capture them at their worst. You can't always tell what's real and what's weaponised in such recordings," she cautioned. On the other hand, Advocate-on-Record Bhaskar Aditya believes the ruling is in sync with the times, citing the rise in failed marriages and marital discord. 'When relationships break down, the right to a fair trial shouldn't," he said, calling the ruling consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty—including a fair trial. As India grapples with evolving definitions of privacy, marriage, and justice, this ruling raises a crucial—and quirky—question: In the age of smartphones and secret mics, is love still blind… or just being quietly recorded? view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
5 hours ago
- India Today
Delimitation not part of election process, its administrative action: Goa court
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the City of Panaji Corporation Act, which authorises the Director of Municipal Administration, and not the State Election Commission, to delimit municipal court held that the power of delimitation is administrative in nature and not part of the election process, concluding that 'no case is made out' to strike down Section 9 (2).advertisementThe petitioner, Menino Da Cruz is a two-time elected corporator from Ward 19 of the Corporation of the City of Panaji. His lawyer Rohit Bras De Sa argued that the 2005 amendment violated Articles 243-K (Panchayat elections and 243-ZA (Municipalities elections) of the Constitution and Section 11 (outlines the commission's role in the corporation's elections) of the Act. The advocate submitted that vesting delimitation powers in the Director undermined the independence of elections, as delimitation affects fair representation and must be carried out under the supervision of the Election also flagged the lack of statutory guidelines and alleged that the process had been misused by delegating powers to revenue officers like the State of Goa, represented by Advocate General Devidas Pangam, countered that delimitation is not part of the "conduct of elections" as envisaged under Article 243-ZA. Pangan argued that administrative tasks such as demarcating wards can legally be performed by government with the advocate general's submissions, the bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta observed, 'according to us, demarcation of wards into Cities for the purpose of election is not a part of conduct of 'election' and, therefore, in our view, do not fall within the scope of the functions exclusively assigned to the State Election Commission'The bench held that merely because a provision is 'susceptible to misuse' cannot be a ground to declare it unconstitutional. "It is settled position of law that a validity of a statute or a provision cannot be struck down only on a ground of its susceptible misuse and only it would result into harsh situations in its application," added the bench.- Ends
