Justice B Pugalendhi observed that there were 59 honour killings in the State of Tamil Nadu over the past 10 years. The judge remarked that deep-rooted casteism in the minds of the people was spoiling the entire system.

“Honour killing is the extreme reflection of casteism. Casteism divides the society and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lala Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh [2006 (5) SCC 475] has observed that casteism is a curse on the nation. In fact, this is not the first instance of honour killing and there were 59 honour killings reported in the state over the past 10 years. Casteism has become deep rooted in the minds of the people and it is spoiling the entire system,” the court said.

“The sun gives light to everyone, the rain falls on everyone and the air is shared by everyone. Nature does not recognizes caste. Only when the society transcends the artificial barriers of caste, will it truly awaken to the enduring truth that all human beings are equal and that there is truly no “honour” in honour killings and it is a shameful act,” the judge said.

The court also pointed out that legislations like the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have not yielded the expected results since the cases being reported under the Act were increasing day by day. The court added that reforms had to be made at the school level to bring a change in the minds of the younger generation.

“The legislations like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have not yielded the expected results. The incidents being reported under this Act are increasing day by day and reforms have to be made from the school level to change the mindset of the younger generation,” the court said.

The court added that soldiers, who serve the country, make the ultimate sacrifice while defending the motherland without the prejudice of caste. It added that when a soldier faces the enemy fire, neither their blood nor their patriotism bears the mark of caste. The court held that this example should inspire the nation to create a society without caste where every individual is treated with respect.

“When they face enemy fire and make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the motherland, neither their blood nor their patriotism bears the mark of caste. Their lives and sacrifices embody the ideals of unity and equality that form the bedrock of our Constitution. If those entrusted with safeguarding the nation can unite towards a common cause, their example should inspire every citizen to reject caste prejudices and work towards the creation of a society where every individual is treated with respect,” the court said.

The court made the observations while hearing the bail plea of Saravanan, one of the accused in the honour killing of Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.

Kavin Selvaganesh, a techie working in Chennai belonging to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, was hacked to death on July 27, 2025, by the family of the woman, with whom he allegedly had a love affair, who belonged to the Hindu Maravar community. The prime accused was the woman's brother, and Saravanan was the woman's father. Both Saravanan and his wife were working as Sub-Inspectors of Police at the time of the incident.

The High Court had previously dismissed the bail plea of Saravanan. He had later filed bail pleas before the trial court, which were dismissed again. Against this, the present criminal appeal was filed.

The court noted that the final report had been filed in the case and further proceedings had been stayed. The court also noted that Saravanan had been jailed for 10 months and keeping him in jail any longer would amount to pre-trial imprisonment.

The court thus granted him bail on conditions. Saravanan was asked to stay in Coimbatore and report before the police twice daily. He was ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for the sum of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties for like sum. He was also asked to file an affidavit before police stating that he will not misuse his liberty, not indulge in any further offence and would not visit the place of occurrence at the time of trial.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ananth

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. D. Venkatesh, Government Counsel, Mr.C.M.Arumugam

Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252

Case No: Crl.A(MD)No.277 of 2026