AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W.P. No. 12798 of 1993 is filed by MO. Kandaswami Singh, President of Ambcdkar Socialist Society. Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu,
seeking the relief of declaration that the naming of South Arcot New District as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar as unconstitutional and void.
The basis for claiming the relief is the same as in W.P. No. 12833 of 1993.
W.P. No. 12833 of 1993 is filed by Dr. V. Balasundaram, President of Dr. Ambed-kar People''s Movement, Madras-4, to issue a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in G.O. Ms. No. 366, Revenue Department, dated 11-5-1993, issued by the respondents and to
quash the same in so lar as it relates to the caste appellation ''Padayachiar'' and for directing the respondents to drop the caste appellation
''Padayachiar'' in naming the new district with headquarters at Villupuram.
By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing since the arguments in the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions
and in the Writ Petitions will be one and the same.
As stated above. W.P:No. 12833 of 1993 has been filed by Dr. V. Balasundaram, who is the Founder President of Dr. Ambed-kar People''s
Movement, which according to the petitioner, is an organisation devoted to the social reforms like abolition of caste system, reclamation of human
rights and establishment of equality among all people. The main and the fore-most objective of the movement is to strive for establishment of caste-
less and class-less society and to secure justice, social, economic and political liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, to all.
According to the petitioner, the abolition of caste system and establishment of equality still remain a distant dream even though great leaders like
Dr. Ambedkar and Pandit Nehru have pleaded for abolition of caste system and establishment of equality and promoting humanism among
different people of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention at the time of argument to the recenl land mark judgment of the Apex Court in
Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., which high-lighted the effect of caste system. The learned counsel has also invited
my attention to paragraphs 17, 25, 26, 28, 333, 334, 335, 337, 339, 399 and 657 from the said judgment. The observations made by the
Hon''ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the said judgment have also been extracted in the affidavit. The petitioner further referred to the speeches
made by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 26-1-1950 and in the Round Table Conference.
Coming to the question at issue, the petitioner states that the Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to bifurcate the existing South Arcot District
into two districts and name one district after Vallalar Ramalinga Adigal and the other district as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar District. The
grievance of the petiltoner is that the caste appellation sought to be given to the new district is injurious to the social harmony now prevailing among
the various communities. In South Arcot, there are two major communities viz., Padayachi and Adi Dravidas, which are almost equal in population
and by adding the caste appellation ''Padayachiar'' to the new district amounts to recognition of caste system and it would wound the feelings of the
equally large section of the people in the district. The caste name sought to be given to the new district is a constant remainder of the tyranny and
the havoc of the yester years and would lead to disturb the social harmony and peace prevailing now between the two communities now.
Dr. C. Rumakrisrman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Constitution has abolished untochability under Article 17, which says
that untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an
offence punishable in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the abolition of untouchability remains only in paper and
unless the caste system is broken, the practice of untouchability cannot be completely stopped. He, therefore, urges that the constitutional
obligation of the Government is to discard castes and fully comply with the constitutional mandate viz., abolition of un-touchabilif y and giving caste
name to the new districts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, giving caste name to the new district is not the way to comply with
the constitutional mandate. The word ""Padaya-chair"" denotes only a caste name and it is not honorific name as Periyar. and giving such a name as
Padayachiar to the new district amounts to perpetuating caste and untouchability. Any act done in perpetuating caste system is against Constitution
and it lends to violate the fundamental right of abolition of untouchability and also the great principle of equality enshrined in Articles Hand 17 of the
Constitution.
According to Dr. C. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the untouchability cannot be separated from caste system, and according
to the father of the Constitution, untouchability is only an extended form of caste and, therefore, without abolition of castes, there is no hope of
abolition of untouchability. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that it is quite evident that untouchability cannot be totally abolished without
abolition of caste, and as long as castes remain and govern the Indian society, untouchability will continue to afflict the victims of casie system in
one way or other. Learned counsel states that a particular caste is singled out for kind treatment and too much attention, which is not the way of
honouring the late lamented Ramaswami. The Government of Tamil Nadu in naming the new district with caste appellation ''Pada-yaebiar'' has
totally by-passed the sentiments and expression of objection raised by large number of people of the district. Dr. Ambed-kar People''s movement
in the district of South Arcot has taken deep root among the people of the district and there are number of branches all over the district.
Demonstrations throughout the district have been held raising objection for giving the name ''Padayachiar'' to the new district and demanding the
Government to name one of the two new districts after the great Nandanar, who fought for social justice.
Learned counsel or the petitioner submits that the Government has acied arbitrarily in by-passing the wishes of the Adi Dravi-das and in giving
the caste name Padayachiar to the new district. According to the learned counsel, Ramaswami Padayachi, whose name is sought to be honoured
by naming the new district has ceased to be a caste man on his death and he now belongs to Tamil Nadu and all people of India, and if the people
still call him by his caste name, his greatness is denigrated. Thus, the learned counsel contends that G.O. Ms. No. 366, Revenue Department,
dated 11-5-1993 naming the district with head-quarters at Villupuram as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar District is against the provisions of
the Constitution, against secularism and against national unity and integration. Such an action on the part of the Government is arbitrary, unjustified
and above all, against the basic features of the Constitution. In spite of opposition, the Government is bent upon proceeding with the inauguration
of the new district on 24-7-1993 at Villupuram, which is a mala fide action and instead of the State making all that is possible towards doing away
with the castes and abolition of untouchability, it seeks to perpetuate caste system and untouchability, which is inherent in the caste name. The
learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for quashing the impugned Government Order is so far as it relates to the caste appellation
''Padayachiar''.
D.Cycril, Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Mr. A. S.
Venkatachalamoorthi, learned Govt. Pleader, argued the case on behalf of the respondents. The learned Govt, Pleader submits that the Govt. of
Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to bifurcate the existing South Arcot District into (I) South Arcot District with headquarters at Cuddalore and
(2) Villupuntm Vallalar District with headquarters at Villupuram. Necessary Government Orders viz., G.O.Ms. No. 481. Revenue, dated 23-4-
1992. G.O. Ms. No. 1486. Revenue, dated 18-12-1992 and G.O. Ms. No. 265, Revenue, dated 30-3-1993 were issued. Before passing G.O.
Ms. No. 265. Revenue, dated 30-3-1993, objections were called for from the public regarding bifurcation and the same was published in the
District Gazette of South Arcot District dated 28-12-1992. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that G.O. Ms. No. 265, Revenue, dated 30-3-
1993 deals with bifurcation of the existing South Arcot District into two districts. Representations were received from various associations to name
the district with headquarters at Villupuram after the great leader Thiru S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi. The learned Govt. Pleader has also produced
the relevant file for my perusal.
Mr. A. S. Venkatachalamuthi, learned Govt. Pleader submits that in fact 14 Members of the Legislative Assembly from the existing South
Arcot District and belonging to different communities represented to the Hon''ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in writing to name the new district
with headquarters at Villupuram after the great leader S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi in order to honour him and in his memory. It is seen from the
statement made by the Hon''ble Chief Minister in the Assembly on 15-4-1993 that 18 associations have made representations to name the new
district with headquarters at Villupuram after the great leader S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi. It is also seen from the said statement that a
representation was presented to the Hon''ble Chief Minister by Fra. Kulasekaran, President of Centre of Vanniyakula Kshatriya Welfare
Association on 13-4-1993, besides the representation given by the M. L. As. of the existing South Arcot District, which includes Hon''ble Thiru
M. Anandan, Minister for Adi Drividar Well sue, to name the new district with headquarters at Villupuram as Ramaswami Padavachi District. The
Hon''ble Chief Minister has also made a statement in ihe Assembly on 15-4-1993 informing the decision of the Government to bifurcate the
existing South Arcot District and to name the new district with headquarters at Villupuram as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayaehiar District.
Before proceeding to consider the contentions raised by both parties, it is pertinent to notice that the contentions raised by the petitioner in
W.P. No. 12798 of 1993, which was filed by the party-in-person, are the same as in the other writ petition. Hence, I am not repeating the same.
Having regard to the common issue that arise for consideration in both the writ petitions, I propose to deal with the same jointly.
There cannot be any dispute that S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi was a great leader and was popular among all sections and communities ofthe
society in Tamil Nadu and participated in public life and was respected by one and all. It is seen from the materials placed before me by the
learned Govt, Pleader that he was first elected to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Cuddalore General Constituency in the year 1952 and
between 1952 and 1962. he was a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. In fact, between 1954 and 1957, he was the Minister for Local
Administration and he made many achievements to his credit. That apart, he was the President ofthe Cuddalore Municipal Council and President
of the Tamil Nadu Toilers Party, Above alt, he took keen interest in the upliftment of the backward and down trodden people. Therefore, the
learned Govt. Pleader submits, that in consonance with the wishes of the public, the new district with headquarters at Villupuram was orderd to be
named as Villupuram Rarnaswami Padaya-chiar District and that the new district was ordered to be formed with effect from 24-7-1993.
According to the learned Govt, Pleader, this has been done in the memory of the said Thiru Ramaswami Padayachai by way of honouring him and
not with any other motive or intention. The learned Govt. Pleader has also placed before me the records including the Assembly records to show
that S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi was all along known as S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi, which is in fact his actual name also. Thus, he submits, that
only if the new district is named as Ramaswami Padayachiar District, it will refer to him.
Mr. A. S. Venkatachalamurthi. learned Govt. Pleader also invited my attention to the announcement made by the Hon''ble Chief Minister in the
Assembly on 15-4-1993 to the effect that the new district with headquarters at Villupuram will be named as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar
District and on the very next day, this announcement appeared in all the newspapers. Subsequently on 11-5-1993, G.O. Ms. No. 366, Revenue
Department, was issued to the effect that the new district to be formed with headquarters at Villupuram will be named as Villupuram Ramaswami
Padayachiar District, Even though the petitioners and others were well aware about the naming of the new district even as early as April, 1993,
they approached this Court only at the last hour viz., just a few days before the inauguration of the new district. In this connection, the learned
Govt. Pleader has also pointed out that Pasumpon Mulhuramalingam District was renamed as Pasumpon Thevar Thiruma-gan District and in this
regard, necessary orders were passed in G.O. Ms, No. 488, Revenue, dated 5-4-1989, and that the petitioner has not challenged this order,
which would go to show that the people of Tamil Nadu accepted such names. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, the present attempt of the
petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the eve of the inauguration of the new district is motivated
and lacks bona fides. Even today, one of the districts is known as Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District.
I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by both parties. I am able to see from the records placed before this Court that
the new district has been proposed to be named after the actual name of the great leader S.S. Ramaswami Padachai. The fact that Ramaswami
Padayachi was a accredited leader of the society and devoted his entire life for the uplift of the backward and down trodden people is not denied.
As already referred to the new district is being formed in the name of an accredited leader. The records also show that he had always been known
as S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi in general and for all official purposes. Even when he was a member of the Legislative Assembly and Minister of
State Cabinet, in the official records he was known as Ramaswami Padayachi. The allegation of the petitioners that giving such a name as
''Pudayachi'' to the new district amounts to perpetuating caste and untouchability and such an act would be against the Constitution and tends to
violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 17 of the Constitution, in my opinion, is not well founded. The respondents have already
set out the reasons in detail in the counter affidavit filed by them for naming the new district as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar District.
I am also unable to accept the contention of Dr. C. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Government of Tamil Nadu have
by-passed the opinion of the large number of the people of the district and in that regard demonstrations were held throughout the district, in a
number of places. In fact, as stated supra, various associations and 13 Members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to different communities of
the existing South Arcot District, which include the Minister for Adi Dravidar Welfare, pleaded in writing to the Hon''ble Chief Minister, on behalf
of the people of South Arcot District, to name the district with headquarters at Villupuram as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar District. In my
view, the representations made by the various associations, and particularly, the written re-presentation made by the M.L.As. of the existing South
Arcot District, belonging to various communities and who also represent the people at large of the existing South Arcot Disrict cannot be simply
ignored or brushed aside. In my considered opinion, the Government of Tamil Nadu have taken and respected the representation made by the
M.L.As. of the existing South Arcot District, who in fact, represent the cross section of the people of the district in question. I can only say that the
Government of Tamil Nadu have respected the wishes of the local people and the representation made by the associations and the M.L.As., on
their behalf and issued orders to name the new district as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar District. It is also proved by records that the actual
name of the person in whose name the new district is to be formed is S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi and not merely S. S. Ramaswami as mentioned
by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioner''s learned counsel that the action of the State amounts to perpetuating caste sysem and
encourage caste name is without basis since I am of the view, that naming a district after the actual name of the leader will not amount to
encouraging caste system and untouchability as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to G.O. Ms. No. 1531, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 3-10-1978,
which was issued for the removal of caste attached with names of streets. However, learned Govt. Pleader submits that this order has not been
extended to other public places etc.. and this order will not apply to the naming of the districts, etc. In G.O, Ms. No. 1044, Revenue, dated 18-7-
1991. orders have been issued to rename the Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan District as Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District. Further, the
name of Tamil Nadu Agriculture University was changed as Tamil Nadu G. D. Naidu Agricultural University, Since representations were received
from the students and the Teachers Association to rename the Tamil Nadu G. D. Naidu Agricultural University as Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University and since the Academic Council and the Board of Management of the then Tamil Nadu G.D. Naidu Agricultural University
recommended to change the name of University as Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and since almost all Agricultural Universities in India have
been named after the State, it was renamed as Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Thus, I am of the view, that the inauguration of the new district
after the actual name of the leader viz., S. S. Ramaswami Padayachiar, will not amount to perpetuating a caste as urged by the petitioners.
Writ Petitions filed for similar reliefs were dismissed by this Court, when the Ramathapuram disirict was trifercated and Pasumpon Thcvar
Thirumaganar Districl was formed, S, Natarajan, J., as he then was, in W.P.No. 7226 of 1984, while disposing of a similar writ petition, has
observed as under :
Whatsoever may be the grievance of the petitioner over the naming of the district in the name of Pasumpon Muthuramalingan Thevar, this Court
can examine the contentions of the petitioner only from the legal angle. So examined, it is seen, that there is no statute or law which compels the
Government to name a district in a particular manner. As such, the decision of the Government to name the district in the name of Pasumpon
Mathuramalingam is not in violation of any law. However, Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the absence of any
statutory provision or guideline cannot mean that the Government can act in an arbitrary manner. The answer is that in matters like this, the
Government is expected to take into consideration the general senti-mems of the people and act in conformity with their wishes. There is no
material to show that the Government have acted, or exercised their powers, in an arbitrary manner in proposing to name the distric after
Pasumpon Muthuramalmgam. In the absence of any legal provision on the basis of which a rule couldbe issued, the petitioner''s request cannot be
complied with. Consequently, this petition will stand dismissed.
Thus, considering the entire matter from the legal angle, the Government, in my view, have taken into account the general sentiments of the
cross section of the people of the district in question and acted in conformity with their wishes. There is no material to show that the Government
have acted or exercised its powers in an arbitrary manner while proposing to name the new district after S. S. Ramaswami Padayachi. In the
absence of any legal provision on the basis of which a rule could be issued, the petitioner''s request, in my view, cannot at all be complied with.
As already mentioned the announcement was made by the Hon''ble Chief Minister on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that the new
District with head quarters at Villu-puram will be named after Ramaswami Padyachi. It cannot be gainsaid that late Thiru Ramaswami Padayachi
was a great leader who was popular amongsl the people of the District, who was elected to the Legislative Assembly from Cuddalorc general
constituency and he continued to occupy the said post till 1962. He was also the Minister for Local Administration between 1954 and 1957
respecting the representations received from the people, the Government has decided to honour late Ramaswamy Padayachi by naming the new
District as Villupuram Ramaswami Padayachiar District.
The only way of respecting an acclaimed leader is to recognise the name by which he was popularly known amongst the public. For instance,
even one of the Districts in our State is known as Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District, even though the word Thevar represents the caste to
which he belongs. The Government by naming the District as proposed has only honoured the great leader and it is futile to contend that the
Government has honoured the caste to which the leader belongs. If the contention of Dr. C. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. MO Kandasamy Singh, party in person is accepted, and the word ""Padayachi"" is deleted after the name ''Ramasami'' the entire purpose of
honouring the leader would be lost and the posterity may not even know which ""Rarna-swami"" was honoured by the Government, Further, it is for
the Government to decide as to how and after whom a particular District should be named and it would be outside the province of this Court to
interfere in such matters and it is the exclusive preserve to the Government. The petitioner''s contention that there should be a casteless society is
not only a dream of the founding fathers of the Constitution but also of the great national leaders. But such a casteless society as envisaged by the
great visioneries has not come true even after more than four decades after independence due to the social divisions, and innumerable sub-divisions
which has been in vogue from time immemorial and vastness of the country, with different langauge, culrure and religion Even in the matter of
admission into educational institutions and Government services, candidates are identified by their caste. That has been done with a view to give
due representation and encouragement to the members of the society who remain socially, economically and educationally backward. From this it
cannot be contended that the State is encouraging caste system. Therefore the castetess society can come into existence only if the attitudes and
outlook of the people is changed. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners have looked at the whole issued with the jaundiced eye. The entire
object of renaming the District is to respect and honour a late great leader whose name incidentally included his caste also. Accordingly, I am of
the view that the Government by renaming the District has only recognised a great leader and respected the sentiments and feelings of the people of
the locality. The decision of the Government is in my opinion neither illegal nor unconstitutional and is not actuated by any mala fides. On the
contrary, the Government of Tamil Nadu has been following the practice of honouring the great leaders by naming the District after them as was
done by previous Governments, There is also a laudable purpose behind it, in that the people of the State will ever remember a great leader and
the posterity will also know about him. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ
petitions. Hence, I dismiss both the writ petitions. No costs.
Before parting with the case I may also observe, that a casteless society is an ideal society and it is unknown as to when that society will
emerge?
Petition dismissed.