Madras High Court Orders District Collector To Probe Alleged Caste-Based Exclusion From Temple Procession

“The issue is whether a public religious festival can be conducted in a manner which has the effect of excluding a particular section of villagers from equal participation on account of caste identity. Article 17 of the Constitution abolished untouchability in all its forms. Such abolition is not confined to denial of temple entry alone. Constitutional courts are duty-bound to ensure that no practice, custom, usage or social arrangement results in a disability founded upon caste,” the court observed.

Justice Victoria Gowri observed that Article 17 of the Constitution does not merely prohibit untouchability but any disability imposed on a person solely on the basis of caste.

“Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form whatsoever. The constitutional prohibition is absolute. It is not subject to custom, usage, local tradition or social acceptance. The Constitution does not merely prohibit physical segregation. Any disability imposed upon a citizen solely because of caste identity falls within the broader constitutional vision that Article 17 seeks to eradicate,” the court said.

The court highlighted that the right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The court observed that no religious practice or customary usage could survive constitutional scrutiny if it violated equality, dignity or fraternity.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Bakiyaraj, a resident of Muthalapuram Village in Dindigul District. Bakiyaraj belonged to the Devendra Kula Vellalar community. He submitted that during the Tamil month of Thai, a ceremonial wooden chest adorned with silk cloth was traditionally taken in procession through the village street. However, this procession was not taken through the North Street, which was primarily inhabited by members belonging to the Devendra Kula Vellalar community.

Bakiyaraj argued that this exclusion was solely due to caste. He added that some of the private respondents claimed that if the procession was brought to their street, it would become impure and unholy. He added that though he had given representations to the authorities, no action was taken. Thus, he had approached the court for relief.

On the other hand, the private respondents claimed that the route of the procession was unchanged from time immemorial and the deity was not taken through Bakiyaraj's street previously also. It was submitted that there was no discrimination and all community members were free to enter the temple and worship the deity. It was argued that altering the long-standing customs with respect to procession route by way of judicial orders would create avoidable tension and disturb the communal harmony.

Since an argument was raised with respect to the custom, the court opined that the matter required an independent administrative assessment by the District Collector. The court was of the opinion that the Collector, being the head of the district administration would be best equipped to undertake a field inspection, interact with all the stakeholders, examine historical records and ascertain the feasibility of the procession route to evolve an inclusive mechanism.

The court thus directed the Dindigul District Collector to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the grievances. The court directed the Collector to convene a meeting with all stakeholders including representatives of the petitioner community, private respondents, village elders, Revenue officials, Police Department and officials of the HR & CE officials, if necessary.

The court observed that if found feasible, the Collector could make appropriate arrangements for including the petitioner's street in procession route, by making infrastructural modifications, if necessary. The court also directed the police to provide adequate police protection and ensure maintenance of law and order.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Vellaichamy

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. Saravanan, Counsel for Government of TN (Crl. Side), Mr. D. Rajaboopathy, Counsel for State of TN (Crl. side), Mr. K. Kevin Karan

Case Title: Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

Case No: WP Crl (MD) No.883 of 2026