In a significant verdict on affirmative action and gender equality, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, has held that candidates born and raised in the Union Territory of Puducherry are entitled to Scheduled Caste (SC), Most Backward Class (MBC), or Other Backward Class (OBC) community certificates with “Origin” status based on their mother’s nativity, even if the father is a migrant from another State. Allowing a batch of writ petitions, the Court quashed the administrative orders that denied origin status to such candidates and held that they are entitled to all consequential reservation benefits in public employment and educational admissions offered by the Union Territory Administration.
Background of the Case
The batch of petitions was filed by candidates—and parents representing minor children—who were born, continuously raised, and educated in Puducherry. In every instance, the mother was an origin native of Puducherry holding a community certificate belonging to an SC, MBC, or OBC category with established origin status. The fathers, belonging to the very same communities, had migrated to Puducherry primarily from neighbouring districts of Tamil Nadu or lacked ancestral documentation to establish their origin status prior to the requisite cut-off dates.
The crucial cut-off dates determining origin status in the Union Territory are March 5, 1964, under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, for Scheduled Castes, and February 19, 2001, under G.O.Ms.No. 9/2001, for MBC and OBC categories.
While the territorial administration did not dispute the caste status or birth of the candidates in Puducherry, it refused to issue them community certificates reflecting local origin status. Instead, the authorities either rejected their applications or issued certificates endorsed with a “migrant” tag. This categorization restricted the candidates to claiming reservation solely under Central Government employment or the All India Quota, effectively barring them from the reservation quotas administered by the Union Territory of Puducherry.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Counsel G. Masilamani and supporting counsel argued that the administration’s refusal was discriminatory on the grounds of sex and directly violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India. They contended that the administration’s reliance on patriarchal assumptions was legally untenable, particularly following statutory developments like the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which conferred equal coparcenary rights on women.
The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court ruling in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naik v. State of Gujarat, which affirmed that community status can be claimed through the mother. Counsel also highlighted that an earlier circular dated November 10, 2000—which sought to restrict origin determination strictly to the applicant’s father—had already been declared unconstitutional by the High Court in P. Jeya v. Union of India, a ruling affirmed by a Division Bench and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when dismissing the government’s appeal in 2023. Multiple Division Benches of the High Court, including in Siva Johnson Kennedy. I v. Union of India and Puducherry Bhim Sena v. Union of India, had subsequently directed the issuance of origin certificates based on maternal status.
Opposing the petitions, Additional Government Pleader R. Sreedhar contended on behalf of the Puducherry Administration that the determination of Scheduled Caste status is governed strictly by the Presidential Order under Article 341. Citing the Supreme Court Constitution Bench rulings in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, Action Committee v. Union of India, and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, the government argued that reservation benefits cannot be claimed in a migrant State or Union Territory and remain confined to the territory of origin.
The administration submitted that society is patriarchal and caste must be traced patrilineally from the father. It referred to conflicting Division Bench orders in N. Premnath, Minor Anbarasan, and C. Sathyavathy, an advisory communication from the Union Government dated July 17, 2025, and pending Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court to justify withholding origin status.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the constitutional foundation of reservation, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that reservation is an integral facet of substantive equality aimed at remedying historical social disadvantages.
The Court rejected the Puducherry Government’s defence of customary patriarchy, noting that while Indian society was historically patriarchal, such notions cannot override the fundamental guarantees of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution:
“The traditional belief that vamsam or lineage can only be patriarchal and that the woman takes the domicile of a man are all such stereotypes developed only because of a misogynistic society, compelling women to follow the same.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Court underscored that a woman’s identity must exist in her own right and cannot be submerged by marriage. Applying the principles settled in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naik, the bench pointed out that the governing litmus test for affirmative action is whether the child suffered social deprivations and was brought up in the community environment:
“The basis of reservation is only social disadvantage and the sufferings and stigma attached to the child; that is the primordial factor for conferring the benefit. Whether it is patrilineal or matrilineal makes no difference.”
Addressing the conflict in precedents cited by the administration, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy clarified that the earlier Division Bench decisions denying status through the mother had relied upon the November 10, 2000 circular at a time when an interim stay in P. Jeya’s case was operating. Once the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in P. Jeya in 2023, the judgment striking down that circular became absolute, thereby reviving the administration’s earlier memorandum dated August 3, 1995, which explicitly recognized origin status through either parent. The Court noted that following the 2023 dismissal, Division Benches had consistently ruled in favour of candidates claiming through the mother.
The Court also dismissed the administration’s reliance on the Central Government’s communication of July 17, 2025, clarifying that it was merely an internal advisory to prefer an appeal and could neither override binding judicial pronouncements nor revive a circular already declared unconstitutional.
The Decision
Allowing the batch of writ petitions, the High Court issued the following operative directions:
- The impugned administrative orders rejecting the grant of community certificates with Origin status were set aside.
- The petitioners/candidates were declared entitled to receive community certificates as Scheduled Caste, Most Backward Class, or Other Backward Class with their native resident (Origin) status established on the basis of their mother’s nativity.
- The candidates were held entitled to all reservation benefits in educational admissions and public employment under the Union Territory Administration, along with all applicable consequential benefits.
- The Court clarified that its ruling will not preclude the authorities from denying certificates in the event of a false caste claim or where the mother’s own nativity is disproved.
Case Details:
Case Title: Thelagam v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others (Batch)
Case No.: W.P. No. 30674 of 2026 and batch
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Date: 27.08.2026
