Perpetuation of Caste is Unconstitutional: Mandatory Removal of Caste Appellations in Societies and Educational Institutions

Introduction

SOUTH INDIAN SENGUNTHA MAHAJANA SANGAM v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Madras High Court, 16 April 2025) consolidated three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging:

• Government Order G.O.(2D) No. 17/2025 and a registrar’s order quashing society elections;
• Delay in renewal of a caste‐based society’s registration;
• Registrar’s refusal to approve resolutions of a Christian caste‐based educational fund.

The petitioners were societies whose names and by‐laws explicitly restricted membership to members of particular castes or sub‐sects and aimed at “perpetuation of the caste.” The Court raised the fundamental question whether such entities could continue to be registered or to approach the High Court in intra‐community disputes.

Summary of the Judgment

The Madras High Court held that:

• The constitutional goal is a “casteless society” (Articles 14–17, 21, Preamble).
• Societies named after or restricting membership to a caste/sub‐sect pursue an unconstitutional object—perpetuation of caste—and violate public policy.
• Registrars must identify all such societies, direct them to remove caste appellations from their names and by‑laws, and allow them to re‑register only on compliance. Non‑compliance will attract cancellation under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
• Educational institutions—government or private—with caste prefixes/suffixes in their names must drop them immediately. Failure will lead to de‑recognition and transfer of students.
• The High Court’s powers under Article 226 include issuing wider “moulded” directions to meet social needs and public policy objectives.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Sivakasi Hindu Poorviga Agamudayar Uravinmurai Mahamai Fund Arakkatalai v. The District Registrar (Madurai Bench, 29.08.2023): Held that caste‑welfare societies are not registerable; Government undertook to identify and reform them.
• Appa Balu Ingale v. State of Karnataka [(1995) 4 SCC 469]: Courts must adapt law to changing social conditions and public policy; the goal is consolidation of society, removal of discrimination.
• ABSKS v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 246]: “Fighting faith in a casteless society” is a constitutional value.
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union Of India [(2008) 6 SCC 1]: The ultimate constitutional aim is a casteless, classless society; perpetuation of caste is unconstitutional.
• Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar [(2005) 5 SCC 632]: Co‑op societies with religious objects are permissible, but circumstances have changed since 2005.
• State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana [(1979) 1 SCC 572]: High Courts under Articles 226/32 can “mould” reliefs to achieve social justice.
• Comptroller & Auditor General v. K.S. Jaganathan [(1986) 2 SCC 679]: Article 226 powers are “couched in wide language” to reach every injustice.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be structured along these lines:

1. Constitutional Goal: A casteless society is the founding constitutional aspiration enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 14–17, 21, and 46. Caste discrimination, including self‑segregating caste associations, undermines equality and fraternity.
2. Statutory Framework:
   • Section 3, Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975: Permits registration of societies for education, charity, culture, etc. “Perpetuation of caste” is not among recognized objects.
   • Section 9: Names likely to promote disharmony (including caste‑based names) are “undesirable.”
   • Section 38: Power to strike off societies engaged in unlawful or unconstitutional activities.
3. Public Policy & Social Context: Rising caste violence, “honour killings,” discrimination in schools/colleges, Government Order 152 (23.08.2023) appointing Justice K. Chandru (Retd.) Committee confirm the urgency of uprooting caste appellations.
4. Writ Jurisdiction: Article 226 empowers High Courts not only to quash government action but also to issue bespoke “moulded” directions to serve justice and public interest, including administrative reforms.
5. Remedy: Registrars must:
   • List all caste‑named societies;
   • Require drop of caste names and by‑law amendments within specified time;
   • Cancel registrations under Section 38 for non‑compliance;
   • Ensure no caste appellations in private or government educational institutions; else de‑recognition and student transfer.

3. Impact

• Sets a binding precedent: Caste‑named and caste‑restricted societies cannot be registered or maintained under the Societies Registration Act.
• Administrative overhaul: Registrars across Tamil Nadu must implement Circular 1/2024 and this Judgment within fixed time frames.
• Educational institutions: All government/private schools or colleges bearing caste prefixes/suffixes must rename themselves immediately, or face de‑recognition.
• Judicial activism: Reinforces the view that High Courts may “mould” comprehensive remedies under Article 226 to align law with constitutional values.
• Societal message: A decisive judicial stand against caste perpetuation may spur legal reforms elsewhere in India.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Writ of Mandamus (Article 226): A command by the High Court directing a public authority to perform a legal duty.
• Section 9, Societies Act: Prohibits registration of any society whose name promotes discord among groups (including castes).
• Section 38, Societies Act: Empowers the Registrar to cancel the registration of a society engaged in unlawful or unconstitutional activities.
• “Moulded” Relief: Tailored judicial orders beyond strict formality to achieve effective justice (e.g., administrative directions, deadlines).
• Caste Appellation: A name prefix/suffix denoting a particular caste or sub‑sect (e.g., “Kallar Reclamation School”).

Conclusion

SOUTH INDIAN SENGUNTHA MAHAJANA SANGAM v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU crystallizes a new legal principle: any society or institution that carries a caste name or restricts membership by caste is pursuing an unconstitutional object and violates public policy. The decision:

• Affirms the constitutional mandate for a casteless society;
• Mandates systemic administrative reforms to purge caste appellations from registered societies and educational institutions;
• Demonstrates robust exercise of Article 226 powers to shape society in line with constitutional values.

This Judgment will guide policymakers, Registrars of Societies, educational administrators, and the courts in dismantling institutional caste perpetuation, thereby advancing equality and fraternity in our social fabric.