Adv. Shraddha Sunil

In Praveen Chhetri v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the Allahabad High Court, by Justice Vinod Diwakar, not only rejected a petition to quash criminal proceedings under the IPC and Excise Act but also issued strict directions to remove caste enquiries from all police and public documents in Uttar Pradesh. Declaring caste Glorification “anti-national,” the Court located true patriotism in adherence to constitutional morality.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Praveen Chhetri v. State of U.P.[1] stands as one of the most significant judicial pronouncements of the decade on the question of caste in governance. While the case originated as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash proceedings for liquor smuggling, the Court seized the opportunity to address a more profound societal concern - the continued mention of caste in official police records, a practice that stands in violation of constitutional morality.

Justice Diwakar’s judgement went beyond the procedure and to the philosophical aspect, articulating that “the dignity of the nation does not emanate from lineage or caste affinity, but from adherence to constitutional morality.”[2] This articulation reframes patriotism itself as a moral commitment to equality and fraternity, echoing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of social democracy as the foundation of India’s Republic.

From a Criminal Petition to Constitutional Reflection

The case arose from the interception of two vehicles allegedly smuggling liquor from Haryana to Bihar. The petitioner, Praveen Chettri, was among those apprehended and charged under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 60/63 of the Excise Act.[3] While reviewing the investigation record, the court noted that the Investigating Officer had included the caste of the accused —Mali, Pahadi Rajput, Thakur, Punjabi Parashar, and Brahmin—in the FIR and seizure memo.[4]

The court took suo motu cognisance of this issue and directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to justify the practice. In his affidavit, the DGP defended the inclusion of caste on the grounds of “identification” and “clarity” when several individuals bore identical names.[5] Rejecting this reasoning, the court held that the use of caste as an identifier was unconstitutional and “untenable in an era of digital tools such as Aadhaar, fingerprints, and mobile-based verification.”[6]

CASTE, IDENTITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Caste Profiling as Administrative Discrimination

Caste references in FIRs and arrest memos constitute a form of administrative casteism, reflecting social hierarchy within state documentation. Such practice not only violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, but also fosters implicit bias in policing, judicial evaluation, and perception. For marginalized communities, this could mean enduring stigma. The presumption of guilt can play itself not to conduct but to identify, perpetuating structural discrimination. As the Court observed, “an accused has no caste or religion when the Court deals with his case”.[7]

Reclaiming Constitutional Morality

Justice Diwakar’s decision synthesizes constitutional, psychological, and more reasoning. Citing Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,[8] Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,[9] and State of Rajasthan v. Gautam,[10] Justice Diwakar underscored that secularism and fraternity are integral to the basic structure of the constitution and that caste consciousness is compatible with the idea of justice. The Court invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s closing address to the Constituent Assembly, reiterating that “castes are anti-national… they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.”[11] Just Diwakar reaffirmed that fraternity is the soul of constitutional democracy:

“True honour for one’s office lies not in lineage but in the humility to uphold constitutional values”[12]

In a remarkable innovation, the Court also directed that the mother’s name be included alongside the father’s or husband’s name in all police formats, an act of gender justice within a judgment on caste, reinforcing intersectional equality.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARGINALISED COMMUNITIES

Decriminalising Identity

By ordering the deletion of caste identifiers, the judgment restores dignity to those historically stigmatized by their birth. For Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs, whose communities have often been over- policed or stereotyped, this ensures that no accused person’s caste identity taints the presumption of innocence. It de-links criminality from caste, a major step toward substantive equality.

Institutional Accountability

Justice Diwakar’s critique of the DGP as “a bureaucrat in uniform detached from constitutional morality”[13] signals a demand for ethical literacy within law enforcement. It calls for anti-bias training, inclusion of constitutional studies in police education, and psychological sensitization by bridging the gap between the rule of law and the spirit of justice.

The Court’s reflections on the “culture of dominance” and “caste narcissism” recognise that caste is not merely a structural issue but a psychological condition like a “state of mind” sustained by insecurity and false pride.[14] This insight repositions the caste question from punitive to transformative justice, calling for a re-education of both the citizen and the state.

The framers of the Constitution envisioned fraternity as the moral glue of Indian democracy. Ambedkar cautioned that without fraternity, liberty and equality would remain “no deeper than coats of paint.”[15] Justice Diwakar’s judgment reimagines this vision, emphazising that constitutional morality must override social morality rooted in hierarchy.

In rejecting caste as a mode of identification, the court operationalises the constitutional promise of Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, religion, sex, or place of birth, and Article 17, which abolishes untouchability. The decision thus affirms the Constitution not merely as a legal charter but as a moral compact between citizens.

FROM LEGAL DIRECTIONS TO SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

Directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh

The court directed the Government of Uttar Pradesh to:[16]

1. Delete caste and tribe columns from all police formats, such as FIRs, seizure memos, arrest and surrender records, and final reports.

2. Add the mother’s name in all relevant columns to enhance gender inclusivity.

3. Remove caste- related signboards from police stations and public areas.

4. Prohibit the erection of caste- glorifying boards in rural or semi-urban localities.

These directions convert constitutional ideals into enforceable administrative procedures, embodying a rare example of judicial creativity in the service of social reform.

Broader Policy Recommendations

The Court further recommended that the Central Government amend the Central Motor Vehicle Rules to prohibit caste- based slogans or emblems on vehicles, and strengthen the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to regulate caste glorification on social media.[17]

By extending its moral jurisdiction beyond Uttar Pradesh, the judgement invites a national dialogue on caste neutrality in governance.

Human Rights and the Path Forward

While the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 addresses overt acts of discrimination, it does not confront the cultural and institutional perpetuation of caste. Justice Diwakar’s call for a comprehensive anti-discrimination law resonates with global best practices such as the UK’s Equality Act 2010. Parliament could consider enacting a Caste Equality and Anti- Anti-Discrimination Act to address both private and institutional bias.

To dismantle caste prejudice, the court urged integration of anti- caste education in school curricula, training of public officials in caste sensitivity, and media campaigns promoting social harmony.[18] These align with the constitutional directive under Article 51A(e) to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and, by extension, to human dignity.

Civil society organizations and human rights defenders can partner with state agencies to implement these reforms through awareness campaigns, community dialogues, and digital monitoring of caste- based hate. The judgment implicitly calls for participation in democracy as part of the project of social justice.

Jurisprudence of Moral Reform

Justice Diwakar’s pronouncement is not merely judicial; it is a teaching, a lesson. It belongs to a growing body of jurisprudence that treats the constitution as a moral text which is akin to the transformative reasoning seen in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[19] and Joseph Shine v. Union of India.[20]

By framing caste glorification as “anti-national,” the Court effectively redefines nationalism in ethical rather than ethnocultural terms, which is nationalism rooted in equality, dignity, and fraternity. It signals a judicial shift from procedural legality to a focus on constitutionality pedagogy, teaching citizens what it means to be truly free.

Towards a Casteless Republic

As India approaches its hundred years of Independence, the Allahabad High Court’s judgment represents both a mirror and a milestone. It mirrors the unfulfilled promise of social justice and lays down a constitutional blueprint for moral renewal.

Dr. Ambedkar warned that political democracy without democracy would be perilous. Justice Diwakar’s judgment bridges that gap, reminding the nation that the annihilation of caste is not a social option but a constitutional obligation.

The judgment rightly reminds us that India’s journey to becoming a developed nation by 2047 cannot be measured merely by the scale of its economic growth, but by the depth of justice, fraternity, and equality it achieves. If implemented with sincerity in both spirit and substance, this decision could well mark the beginning of India’s second freedom struggle — one that seeks liberation not from colonial rule, but from caste and the prejudices it continues to perpetuate.

About the Author:

Shraddha Sunil is a legal researcher and advocate deeply committed to advancing human rights and constitutional justice in India. She holds an LL.M. in Human Rights, where her dissertation examined India’s inconsistency with its treaty obligations under CEDAW, focusing on the non-criminalisation of marital rape and the State’s positive obligations under international law. Her academic and professional work reflects a strong intersectional approach, engaging with issues of gender, surveillance, and digital rights.

Footnotes

[1] Praveen Chhetri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Application u/s 482 No. 31545 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vinod Diwakar J, 16 September 2025)

[2] Ibid [49]

[3] Ibid [3.1]- [3.6]

[4] Ibid [5]

[5] Ibid [6.1]

[6] Ibid [8.1]

[7] State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal, Criminal Appeal No 3168 of 2023 (SC, 14 March 2023).

[8] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp (3) SCC 217.

[9] Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1

[10] State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal (n 7).

[11] B. R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol XI (25 November 1949) 980.

[12] Praveen Chhetri v. State of Uttar Pradesh (n 1) [49].

[13] Ibid [47].

[14] Ibid [28]–[33].

[15] B. R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste (1936).

[16] Praveen Chhetri v. State of Uttar Pradesh (n 1) [51]–[53].

[17] Ibid [51(f)]–[52].

[18] Ibid [43]–[45].

[19] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.

[20] Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39.