CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to issue directions to the Revenue Department authorities to issue a “no caste, no religion” certificate to a person who applied for such a certificate from the authorities in Tirupattur district, saying that there is no law that authorises the officials to issue the certificate.
While dismissing the petition filed by H Santhosh of Tirupathur, Justice SM Subramaniam said in a recent order that "the petitioner's desire to secure a 'no caste, no religion' certificate deserves to be appreciated, but the question arises as to whether such a certificate can be issued by the Tahsildar in the absence of any power conferred by the government to issue such a certificate.”
He added that in the absence of any powers to the Tahsildar, the High Court cannot issue directions to grant such certificates by exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Santhosh approached the court with a prayer to direct the respondent authorities to consider his representation submitted in September and December last year, seeking the issuance of a 'no caste, no religion' certificate.
The judge also pointed out that the 1973 GO of the Education Department provides for the option for any person to leave out the column to mention their caste or religion in school certificates, and another GO, to reiterate this decision of the government, was issued in 2000.
With reference to the above government orders, the petitioner is at liberty to fill out the application form on the school certificate and transfer certificate at the time of admission or otherwise as per his choice.
The petitioner is at liberty to leave the column provided for caste and religion blank, which cannot be questioned by the authorities, the judge noted.
He further stated that if an order is passed to issue such a certificate, it will open the floodgate for other persons to seek such a certificate, and the authorities will be forced to issue it in the absence of any powers.
Referring to the order passed in a similar petition, the judge noted that the order cannot be followed as precedent since it is devoid of any adjudication of the issue, and establishing a legal right becomes mandatory for entertaining the writ petition.
Saying that the court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, he dismissed it.