Madras High Court, Madurai Bench HC website
Litigation News

Want ‘no caste, no religion’ certificate? Relinquish religion first: Madras High Court

The petitioner submitted that although his parents belong to the Hindu religion, he wanted a certificate from the authorities that would not mention caste or religion.

S N Thyagarajan

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a person seeking a “no caste, no religion” certificate must first formally relinquish his religion. [Chellamanickam v. Principal Secretary]

Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy held,

"Unless and until, the petitioner has relinquished his religion as per the Hindu Rites, the petitioner's request could not be considered by the respondents. When such being the position, the issuance of such certificate does not arise."

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

The Court passed the order in a petition filed by Chellamanickam challenging the July 9, 2025 order of the Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, which refused to issue the certificate.

The petitioner submitted that although his parents belong to the Hindu religion, he wanted a certificate from the authorities that would not mention caste or religion. His application was rejected on the ground that no government order (GO) exists permitting issuance of such certificates.

While examining the issue, the Court asked the petitioner whether he had relinquished his religion. The petitioner answered in the negative.

Justice Ramasamy observed that unless and until the petitioner relinquishes his religion in accordance with Hindu rites, the request for a certificate omitting caste and religion cannot be considered. The Court also noted that no proof of such relinquishment had been produced.

In view of this, the Court declined to set aside the Tahsildar’s order and dismissed the writ petition.

At the same time, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue relinquishment of his religion and submit proof before the authorities. The judge observed that if a fresh application is made with proof of relinquishment, the authorities may consider the same.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate P Surendran.

The State was represented by Advocate S Jeyapriya.

[Read Judgment]

Chellamanickam Vs Principal Secretary.pdf
Preview

Water & Shark looking to hire associates in Ahmedabad

When form yields to substance: Diagnostic method patentability after Hirotsu Bio Science Inc. v. Assistant Controller of Patents

Goyel & Goyal acts on MyDesignation Series A fundraise

West Bengal SIR: Supreme Court allows deployment of civil judges; says bring judicial officers from outside if needed

Four-stream waste segregation, criminal prosecution: Supreme Court's pan-India directions for solid waste management

SCROLL FOR NEXT