Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Victoria Gowri, J
C. Manikandaraja – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
W.P Crl.(MD)No.2564 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Senthil Murugan
For the Respondents: S.S. Manoj
The state authority is mandated to intervene and prevent social excommunication or boycott of individuals by private parties to uphold individual rights and communal equality under legal framework.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging social excommunication by a private individual claiming authority within a village. The petitioner requested state intervention to conduct an inquiry into the alleged social boycott and ensure future participation in village events. The Court directed the police authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prevent further acts of social exclusion. The primary issue concerns the state's obligation to protect citizens from extralegal social boycotts and excommunication within a village setting. The ratio decidendi rests on the court's authority to mandate law enforcement to ensure communal harmony and prevent illegal social discrimination, directing authorities to place parties on notice under relevant penal provisions to restrain the perpetrator. The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions issued to the third respondent police to ensure the fifth respondent desists from social excommunication practices.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of illegal social boycott requiring judicial intervention. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court direction to police to use legal provisions to prevent social excommunication. (Para 3 , 5) |
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI W.P Crl.(MD)No.2564 of 2026 C.Manikandaraja ... Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector, Madurai District.
2. The Superintendent of Police Madurai District.
3. The Inspector of Police Uthappanaickanur Police Station Madurai District. 4. The Thasildar Usilampatti Taluk Madurai District.
5. C.T.M.T.V. Chandrasekarapandian ... Respondents PRAYER :-
Writ Petition Criminal filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction, directing the respondent no.1 to 4 herein to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondent No.5 for excommunication/social boycott of the petitioner and his family members at Uthappanaickanur Village, Usilampati Taluk, Madurai District in accordance with law and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to ensure himself and his family members presence in every event (program) of the Village in future on the basis of the representation dated
06.03.2026 & 13.03.2026.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R1 to R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 to 4 herein to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondent No.5 for excommunication/social boycott of the petitioner and his family members at Uthappanaickanur Village, Usilampati Taluk, Madurai District in accordance with law and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to ensure himself and his family members presence in every event (program) of the Village in future on the basis of the representation dated
06.03.2026 & 13.03.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 5th respondent claiming to be the Village Jamindhar had excommunicated the petitioner and his family from participating in all walks of life and also in the related temple festivals in the village, Uthappanaickanur Village.
3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that already a representation with this regard, has been received by the 4th respondent and the same has been forwarded to the 3rd respondent police.
4. Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.
5. In view of the above, the third respondent police is directed to put the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent on notice under Section 64 BNSS and to make sure that the fifth respondent do not indulge in excommunicating either the petitioner or any of the persons in the village from today. It is made clear that the third respondent should ensure the conduct of the fifth respondent preventing him from excommunicating any person in the said village.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
