The Madras High Court has directed that all caste-based references be removed from the names of schools and colleges within four weeks, asserting that such labels are fundamentally at odds with the principles of education and the values taught in academic institutions.

Non-compliant institutions, the Court warned, will face de-recognition. Authorities have been instructed to complete this process before the commencement of the 2025–26 academic year.

The directive came from a Bench led by Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, who emphasized that caste markers in educational institutions directly undermine the moral teachings imparted within them, such as those drawn from the Tirukkural.

“The use of caste names in schools runs counter to their teachings. This Court has already held that such usage is contrary to public policy and must be removed without delay,” Justice Chakravarthy observed.

The Court also ordered the State government to implement the recommendations of a committee led by retired judge Justice K Chandru. These recommendations included removing terms like ‘Kallar Reclamation’ and ‘Adi Dravidar Welfare’ from government school names to eliminate caste connotations.

Further, the Inspector General of Registration of Societies has been directed to identify all caste-based societies—particularly those serving only a specific caste or advancing caste-centric objectives. These societies are to be issued notices to eliminate caste references from their names, amend their bylaws that reinforce caste divisions, and ensure inclusive membership policies irrespective of caste.

This judgment was delivered in response to a batch of three writ petitions filed by:

• South Indian Senguntha Mahajana Sangam (Chennai)

• Tiruchengode Vatta Kongu Velalar Sangam (Namakkal district)

• Poor Educational Fund (Chennai)

While the petitions sought varied reliefs, the Court found a common thread: all three societies promoted a particular caste identity, prompting fundamental legal questions. These included:

• Can caste-based associations be registered at all?

• Can courts adjudicate their internal disputes?

• Should educational institutions operated by these societies be allowed to retain caste-specific names?

While petitioners argued that caste associations have long existed and that their disputes have previously been resolved by courts, the Bench took a firm stance. Justice Chakravarthy stated that in a time when caste-based discrimination and extremism are escalating, the judiciary cannot remain indifferent.

“We often sugarcoat ‘caste’ as ‘community’ in legal discourse. But ‘caste’ is not synonymous with ‘community’—it is more aptly described as ‘com-dividy’,” he remarked.

The Court clarified that while marginalized groups are entitled to form associations to assert their rights, limiting membership to a specific caste undermines the very cause they champion.

Associations that propagate caste exclusivity, the Court held, cannot seek constitutional remedies under Article 226.

“When these associations come to court seeking resolution of internal power struggles—often over elections—they misuse the judicial process, which is meant to uphold fundamental rights, not protect caste-based divisions,” the Court noted.

Importantly, the judgment highlighted that caste-based discrimination transcends religious boundaries. The Court cited the Poor Educational Fund, which limits its membership to Gavaras, Balijas, and Telagas—all from a Catholic Christian background—as evidence of caste’s pervasiveness across faiths.

“Caste today has little to do with religion. It cuts across all faiths. Many continue to carry the burden of caste—even to the moon,” the Court observed with biting irony.

Concluding the judgment, the Court emphasized the corrosive effect of caste identity on social harmony:

“Caste perpetuation undermines fraternity, fostering hostility and division. Its influence, seeping even into school environments, spreads like cancer. The presence of caste names in public life cultivates discord and enmity among communities.”

Representation in Court:

Senior Advocates N Murali Kumaran and V Kamalanathan, along with Advocates S Sathish Rajan, P Rajendran, and R Manibarathi, represented the petitioners.

For the State, Advocate General PS Raman, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, and Senior Advocate Dakshayani Reddy appeared, assisted by Advocates U Baranidharan, P Rajan, and R Sasikumar.

Advocate A Rahul served as amicus curiae to the Court.