Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 54097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, J
Bakiyaraj – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.883 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Vellaichamy
For the Respondents: K.Saravanan, D.Rajaboopathy, K.Kevin Karan
Constitutional morality must prevail over customary practices; any religious or social tradition that enforces caste-based exclusion or untouchability violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, and as such, cannot be sustained.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14, 15, 17, 25 and 51A(e) - Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 - Alleged caste-based exclusion in public temple festival procession - Constitutional morality vs. customary practice - Duty of state administration to ensure equality and fraternity - Court directed District Collector to conduct comprehensive enquiry and determine feasibility of inclusive procession routes to eliminate caste-based discrimination. (Paras 2, 13, 17, 18, 20, 27)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review when dealing with customary disputes involving caste discrimination - Constitutional courts cannot remain passive when issues of equality, dignity, and fraternity are raised - Administrative assessment through field enquiry by head of district administration is the appropriate mechanism for conflict resolution. (Paras 23, 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of the Devendra Kula Vellalar community, alleged that the annual procession of the public Arulmighu Ayiram Aruval Kottai Karuppasamy Temple was being denied entry into his street on the basis of caste considerations. The private respondents claimed the route followed was an ancient custom and denied any discrimination.
Findings of Court:
The court held that public religious institutions cannot be used as instruments for social exclusion. While acknowledging the factual nature of the dispute regarding historical routes, the court mandated an administrative inquiry led by the District Collector to address the grievance consistent with constitutional values.
Issues: (i) Whether customs excluding citizens based on caste can be sustained. (ii) Whether constitutional rights override discriminatory customs. (iii) What measures are necessary to ensure peaceful and inclusive participation in temple festivals.
Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional morality must prevail over social custom when the two conflict. Any practice, whether customary or religious, that imposes disability upon a citizen based on caste identity is repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, especially Articles 14, 15, and 17.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with specific directions for administrative inquiry and inclusive planning.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutionality of social exclusion in public religious institutions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual allegations of caste-based prejudice in village temple processions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments comparing customary rights against constitutional fundamental rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. interpretation of equality, article 17, and constitutional morality. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's role in addressing caste-based discrimination via administrative intervention. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. specific judicial directions to the district collector for inclusive planning. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 7. concluding reflections on social reform and democracy. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
ORDER
The present writ petition presents before this Court a question far greater than the route of a village procession. It compels this Court to examine whether constitutional guarantees secured through decades of social reform can be rendered illusory by invoking customary practices which have the effect of excluding a section of citizens from equal participation in a public religious institution.
2. The Constitution of India did not merely establish a political democracy. It envisioned a social democracy founded upon liberty, equality and fraternity. The framers of the Constitution consciously recognised that social discrimination, particularly caste-based exclusion, had for centuries denied dignity and equal status to large sections of Indian society. Consequently, the Constitution not only guaranteed equality before law under Article 14 but also prohibited discrimination under Article 15 and abolished untouchability in all its forms under Article 17.
3. Whenever allegations are raised before a Constitutional Court that members of a Scheduled Caste community are being prevented from participating in a public religious festival or are denied equal access to a public temple on account of caste identity, such allegations cannot be treated as mere private disputes. They strike at the heart of constitutional morality itself.
4. The present writ petition, therefore, requires this Court to harmonise competing claims of customary practices on one hand and constitutional mandates on the other, while ensuring maintenance of public order and communal harmony.
Factual background:
5. The petitioner belongs to the Devendra Kula Vellalar community and is a resident of North Street, Muthalapuram Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. He claims that the village deity namely Arulmighu Ayiram Aruval Kottai Karuppasamy is a public deity worshipped by all villagers irrespective of caste.
6. According to the petitioner, during the annual festival celebrated in the Tamil month of Thai, a ceremonial wooden chest adorned with silk cloth is traditionally taken in procession through the village streets. The petitioner contends that for the past several years the private respondents have deliberately prevented the procession from entering the North Street inhabited predominantly by members of the Devendra Kula Vellalar community.
7. The specific allegation is that such exclusion is founded solely on caste considerations and that the private respondents have asserted that entry of the deity into the petitioner's street would render the procession impure and unholy. The petitioner further alleges that members of his community are discouraged from participating in temple administration, prevented from making offerings in the temple and excluded from festival-related decision making.
8. It is his further grievance that representations submitted to the authorities did not result in any effective remedial measures. Consequently, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to ensure that the ceremonial procession enters the petitioner's street and to constitute a representative festival committee incorporating members of the Devendra Kula Vellalar community.
Stand of the private respondents:
9. The
