Back
Madras High Court upholds State move to rename streets, colonies carrying caste names
The has upheld a Tamil Nadu government order directing the renaming of residential areas, streets, roads, and water bodies that carry caste-based or objectionable names, dismissing a petition that challenged the initiative as politically motivated.
A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel ruled that the Government Order (G.O. Ms No. 313 dated ) was a "progressive step" towards eradicating caste discrimination from public spaces, and urged the state to expand the exercise to cover all remaining areas.
A Progressive Step, Not a Political Gimmick
The petition, filed by one S. Paramasivam, sought to quash the G.O., alleging that it was issued to gain political advantage ahead of assembly elections and that the 21-day period for public objections was a mere eyewash. The petitioner also argued that the state should have named streets after Tamil literary scholars rather than
"favourites of the ruling party"
.
The state, represented by
, defended the order as
"constitutionally valid, legally sustainable, socially progressive and administratively fair"
. It submitted detailed guidelines for identifying and renaming derogatory caste-based names, and provided examples of changes already effected — such as renaming 'Harijan Colony' as 'Thiruvalluvar Street' and 'Arunthathiyar Theru' as 'Kamarajar Nagar'.
No Confusion for Those Who Shed Caste
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the renaming would cause confusion.
"There would be confusion only in the minds of those who retain the names of the caste in their minds, but there would not be any confusion in the minds of the persons who remove caste from their minds,"
the Bench observed.
The judges further noted that some existing names were so derogatory that they
"cannot be uttered in open court"
. Calling the initiative long overdue, the Bench remarked,
"This step should have been taken many years ago. The Government should not have waited all these years to introduce these changes."
The court also dismissed concerns over the 21-day objection period, holding that a reasonable limit was necessary and that the process allowed for a second after consideration of objections.
Court Calls for Wider Renaming Drive
While dismissing the , the court allowed the state's application to vacate the and ordered . It went a step further by calling upon the government to identify additional places that had been left out and issue a fresh order for their renaming.
"This is a continuous process and it has to be continued by the Government,"
the Bench directed, emphasising that the exercise should extend to all habitations, streets, water bodies, and public institutions carrying caste names.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance against caste-based nomenclature in public spaces, viewing the renaming as a necessary step towards an inclusive and neutral public realm.
