Equal access to public resources—such as water, electricity, schools, and roads—is a fundamental right in any democracy. Yet, in many parts of India, access to these resources continues to be marred by caste-based discrimination, economic inequality, and entrenched social hierarchies. Laws and government policies have played a significant role in addressing these inequities, but the persistence of discriminatory practices demonstrates that legal provisions alone are insufficient. A deeper transformation in people’s mindset is necessary to make equality a lived reality.
This view was recently echoed by the Madras High Court in Thirumalaisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., where the Court emphasised that administrative directions and government orders must be accompanied by a change in mindset among people to eradicate discrimination in sharing public resources.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Article 17: Abolishes untouchability.
Directive Principles: Article 39(b) directs the State to ensure equitable distribution of material resources.
Statutory Safeguards
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 21 specifically obligates governments to ensure measures for social and economic rehabilitation of SC/ST communities, including access to water and other public facilities.
Water and Sanitation Laws: Several state-level policies mandate universal access to drinking water.
These legal safeguards are essential, but as the Court pointed out, laws cannot transform society unless people themselves internalise the values of equality.
Facts
The petitioner, Thirumalaisamy, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 / Section 389(1) CrPC, seeking suspension of sentence and bail in S.C. No. 281 of 2025. He had been convicted by the Principal District & Sessions Court, Tenkasi, on 11.06.2025.
During the bail hearing on 14.07.2025, the Court was confronted with a grave incidental issue — members of the Scheduled Caste community in Thalaivankottai village, Tenkasi District were being denied equal access to public water taps and compelled to wait until members of other communities had drawn their share.
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) directed the District Collector, Tenkasi to:
- Ensure no caste-based discrimination in the distribution of public water.
- Install adequate public tap connections accessible to all communities.
- Prevent any community from monopolising or claiming ownership of public taps.
A compliance report filed on 31.07.2025 stated that 17 public water taps had been installed, water supply was ensured for 3 hours daily, and a local monitoring committee (Panchayat President, Panchayat Secretary, and Zonal Assistant BDO) had been constituted to supervise nondiscrimination.
While appreciating the Collector’s efforts, the Court observed that authorities must not remain passive until complaints are received, as such discrimination often leads to quarrels and criminal offences. The Court emphasised that access to clean drinking water forms part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Relying on Section 3(1)(za)(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which makes obstruction of SC/ST members from accessing public resources an offence, and Section 21 of the Act, which imposes a duty on governments to prevent such atrocities, the Court extended its directions beyond Tenkasi. It ordered all District Collectors in Tamil Nadu, under the supervision of the Chief Secretary and with coordination of the Director General of Police (DGP), to replicate the Thalaivankottai model statewide and file compliance reports by 21.08.2025.
In pursuance of this judicial mandate, the Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O. Letter No. 6630/MA.3/2025-1 dated 25.08.2025, requiring:
- Equal access to public resources without caste discrimination.
- Installation of sufficient water taps across habitations.
- Strict compliance with Section 21 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, particularly regarding access to water.
The DGP also circulated a memorandum to all Commissioners and senior police officials, directing strict implementation of these measures to safeguard the right to equality and prevent caste-based denial of public amenities.
Issues
- Whether administrative orders alone sufficient to ensure non-discriminatory access to public resources?
- Does equal access require not only legal enforcement but also a change in societal mindset?
- How can the constitutional vision of “unity in diversity” be achieved in practical community life?
Suggestions and Observations
Justice R.N. Manjula of the Madras High Court appreciated the swift government and police action in implementing earlier orders.
- However, the Court stressed that mere orders and infrastructure are not enough—a shift in people’s thinking is necessary to eliminate discrimination in sharing public resources like water.
- The Court noted that Thalaivankottai Village in Tenkasi District provided a model example where a team involving youth successfully coordinated equal access, symbolising unity in diversity.
The Court observed:
- Committees must be formed in every district to monitor equal access.
- Youth participation is essential to instill constitutional values in future generations.
- The ultimate goal is to make “unity in diversity” not just an aspiration but a lived reality.
With these remarks, the Court closed the petition, urging authorities to carry forward the drive “without any dilution or compromise.”
Key Highlights of the Suggestions
In the words of Justice R.N. Manjula of the Madras High Court:
In addition to the directions already given, it is suggested to all the stakeholders that there should be a change of mindset in the people in order to ensure that there is no discrimination arises between different communities of people in the sharing of public resources and in the use of public facilities.
It will be appropriate if the model of the team constituted in the Thalaivankottai Village at Tenkasi District can be formed in all the Districts and Panchayat Unions by effectively coordinating with the younger generations of each villager. So that the future citizens will learn how to achieve ‘Unity in Diversity’, which is highly cherished constitutional aspiration
Why Legal and Administrative Measures Are Not Enough
- Enforcement Gaps: Local officials may fail to act unless the community itself demands accountability.
- Social Resistance: Communities may resist directives, seeing them as “state interference” in traditional practices.
- Temporary Compliance: Orders can ensure compliance for a time, but without a change in values, discrimination resurfaces.
Thus, real equality cannot be legislated alone—it must be socially embraced.
Why Mindset Change Is Indispensable
- Internalisation of Equality – When citizens view equality as a natural right, compliance becomes voluntary rather than forced.
- Reduction in Social Friction – Laws can punish violators, but they cannot eliminate the everyday micro-discriminations that occur in communities.
- Sustainable Change – Social reform rooted in mindset ensures long-term impact, unlike temporary compliance from fear of punishment.
- Constitutional Morality v. Social Morality – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality. This requires people to reframe their thinking beyond traditional hierarchies.
Pathways to Changing People’s Thinking
Education
- Incorporating constitutional values in school curricula.
- Promoting sensitisation programs about caste and equality.
Community Models
- Replicating successful experiments like Thalaivankottai Village across other districts to showcase inclusivity in practice.
Role of Youth
- Engaging younger generations in awareness drives ensures long-term change, as noted by the High Court.
Civil Society Movements
- NGOs and local activists must work in tandem with state authorities to foster dialogue and build community trust.
Media and Storytelling
- Highlighting positive stories of shared resources can counter negative stereotypes.
Conclusion
The judgment in Thirumalaisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. illustrates the interplay between law and society. While the Constitution and statutory frameworks lay down the mandate for equality, the realisation of these ideals depends on changing societal attitudes.
A shift in people’s thinking—from casteist, exclusionary notions to inclusive and egalitarian values—is indispensable to ensure equal access to public resources. Courts can direct, governments can enforce, but communities must embrace the constitutional ethos of unity in diversity.
This case thus becomes a landmark reminder that social justice cannot be achieved merely through paper laws—it must be practised in daily life.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams