The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 17 February 2026 dismissed a Writ petition by Chellamanickam, who had sought a ‘No Caste, No Religion’ certificate from the Tahsildar of Thiruppathur Taluk in Sivagangai District. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy ruled against the petitioner after the petitioner stated in court that he had not relinquished his Hindu religion.
The order comes months after a Division Bench of the same court in H. Santhosh v. The District Collector had in June 2025 recognised the right of an Indian citizen to obtain a certificate declaring that he or she does not belong to any caste or religion, and had directed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame a Government Order to that effect.
Chellamanickam had filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Tahsildar’s order and to direct the authority to issue the certificate in his favour. The respondents were the Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the District Collector of Sivagangai, and the Tahsildar.
His parents belong to the Hindu religion, and he sought official recognition as a person with no caste and no religion. The Tahsildar had rejected his application citing the absence of a Government Order providing for the issuance of such a certificate.
The State supported the rejection. Government Advocate Mrs. S. Jeyapriya submitted that the Tahsildar had rightly turned down the application since no Government Order existed for providing such a certificate, and that the matter did not warrant any interference by the court.
By consent of both sides, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
Justice Ramasamy then posed a question to the petitioner: had he relinquished his Hindu religion? The petitioner answered in the negative.
“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 Ramasamy observed.
The court then took up the question of proof. “When there is no proof to that extent is filed, this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order and issue a direction as prayed for,” it stated, and declined to interfere with the Tahsildar’s order.
The court, however, gave Chellamanickam liberty to relinquish his religion, produce proof of the same, and file a fresh application before the authorities. It directed the authorities to consider such an application in accordance with existing rules, or to frame the necessary rules if none existed. No costs were awarded.
Advocate P. Surendran appeared for the petitioner. The case is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86, WP(MD) No. 4303 of 2026.
