Madras High Court Asks TN Govt To Include Life Of Dr. Ambedkar In School Curriculum

Justice Victoria Gowri emphasised that the school system should not just teach the Constitution as dry institutional facts, but teach it through the lives of people who shaped it. The court stressed that to understand Ambedkar is to understand why the constitution must be social.

“The school system must not teach the Constitution merely as a set of dry institutional facts. It must teach the constitutional journey of India through the lives of those who shaped it. Among them, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar occupies a place of singular eminence. To know him is to understand why the Constitution insists upon equality. To study him is to understand why democracy must be social before it can remain political. To remember him is to remember that the Republic is a moral project, not merely a territorial arrangement,” the court said.

The court added that though it was not for the judiciary to tell the State to adopt a particular policy or dictate what should be included in the curriculum, it was constrained to emphasise that the constitutional value of fraternity cannot be left to the uncertainties of social transmission. The court added that it was time for the State to recognise that constitutional literacy was a component of social responsibility.

“The seeds sown by our Constitution, particularly those of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, must be consciously nurtured if they are to endure. The time has come for the State to recognise that constitutional literacy is itself a component of social responsibility. For the sake of future India, and for the shaping of young Indians as informed, humane and constitutionally conscious citizens, such measures can no longer be deferred,” the court said.

The court made the directions in a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against two men, aged 26 and 29, for desecrating a picture of Dr Ambedkar, which was displayed in connection with the celebration of his birth anniversary.

According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant had pasted photos of Dr Ambedkar at Pulikuthi Bus Stand. The first petitioner tore one such poster and urinated upon it, while the second petitioner video recorded it and circulated it in WhatsApp. Based on the complaint, a case was registered for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioners approached the court seeking to quash the case on the ground of compromise. The de facto complainant also agreed to quash the proceeding and did not raise any objections. Since the offence was non-compoundable, the petitioners had approached the court to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

When the matter came up previously, the court enquired with the petitioners on whether they knew about the life and teachings of Dr Ambedkar. Through their response, the court concluded that they knew he was a legal luminary, but had no real understanding of his life, scholarship, his role in the making of the constitution, or his contribution to the liberation of the oppressed and the democratisation of Indian society.

Noting that the petitioners should be made aware of the same, the court asked them to purchase 101 books each in Tamil on the life history of Dr Ambedkar, keep one for themselves and distribute the remaining 100 each to the XI and XII standard students in Murugappa Government Higher Secondary School, T. Kallupatti. The court asked the men to read the entire book and be prepared for an oral test.

When the matter was taken up thereafter, the court questioned the two men on the life of Ambedkar and received a positive reply. The court also noted that the men expressed regret for their ignorance and sought pardon. The court noted that the repentance was real, and their transformation was evident.

“The significance of this course adopted by the Court lies in the fact that the justice system, particularly when dealing with younger offenders, must not always choose between unreflective punishment on the one hand and unreflective closure on the other. There exists, in appropriate cases, a narrow but valuable reformative path, one that insists upon accountability, repentance, education and social responsibility as prerequisites to judicial leniency,” the court noted.

Thus, noting that ends of justice will be better served by terminating the proceedings since the corrective purpose of law was substantially achieved, the court was inclined to quash the proceedings.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Ananda Kumar

Counsel for respondents: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. S. Paul Murugan, Mr. M. Muthu Manickam, Government Advocate

Case Title: G Rajesh and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196

Case NO: Crl.OP(MD)No.22813 of 2025