The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that denial of access to a government-constructed community hall on the basis of caste constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 17 of the Constitution. This judgment underscores the state’s affirmative duty to ensure equal access to public infrastructure, regardless of social identity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a member of the 'Ganda' caste classified under the Scheduled Castes, is a permanent resident of Village Manikpur Chote in District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. A community hall was constructed by the Panchayat Department for the collective use of villagers. However, respondent No. 12, Rohit Patel, has locked the hall and systematically barred the petitioner from entering or using it, citing informal social dominance. Despite repeated complaints to the Gram Panchayat, Police Station Sariya, and local revenue authorities, no action was taken to restore access.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief against multiple state and local authorities.
- The petition sought: (i) access to the community hall, (ii) punitive action against respondent No. 12, and (iii) transfer of possession of the hall to the state.
- The respondents, including the Collector and Superintendent of Police, did not dispute the factual allegations but claimed procedural delays.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ directing the state to permit his entry into the community hall, take punitive action against the obstructing party, and assume control of the public facility to ensure non-discriminatory access.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether denying access to a government-built community hall to a Scheduled Caste individual on caste grounds violates Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution, and whether the state can evade its duty by claiming lack of formal complaint.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the community hall, being a public facility funded by state resources, is subject to the principles of non-discrimination and social equality under Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) and Article 14 (equality before law). Citing State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, counsel emphasized that any exclusion based on caste, even if informal, amounts to state complicity if unaddressed. The failure of local authorities to act despite multiple complaints constituted administrative negligence.
For the Respondent
The State counsel conceded the factual matrix but contended that no formal order or statute prohibited respondent No. 12 from controlling access. They argued that the matter was a local dispute best resolved through civil remedies and that the writ petition was premature without exhausting alternative remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that caste-based exclusion could be treated as a private dispute. It held that public infrastructure funded by the state cannot be monopolized by any individual, especially when exclusion is rooted in caste hierarchy. The Court emphasized that Article 17 imposes a positive obligation on the state to prevent and eradicate untouchability in all forms, including social boycotts enforced through control of public spaces.
"The community hall is not a private property; it is a public asset created for the collective welfare of all villagers. To deny entry to a Scheduled Caste member on the basis of caste is to revive the very practice of untouchability that the Constitution sought to eradicate."
The Court further noted that the inaction of the Gram Panchayat, Tahsildar, and Police constituted a failure of public duty under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The state cannot abdicate its constitutional responsibility by claiming procedural deficiencies.
The Verdict
The petitioner prevailed. The Court held that denial of access to a public community hall on caste grounds is unconstitutional and directed the Collector to adjudicate the petitioner’s fresh representation within 15 days, with strict compliance mandated under law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Access to Public Spaces Is a Fundamental Right
- Practitioners must now treat any denial of access to government-funded community halls, temples, or water sources to Scheduled Castes as a constitutional violation, not a civil dispute.
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable even without prior formal complaint if the violation is manifest and systemic.
State Inaction Is Complicity
- Local authorities - including Gram Panchayats, Tahsildars, and Police - have a non-delegable duty to prevent caste-based exclusion.
- Failure to act despite knowledge of discrimination can attract liability under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
Administrative Deadlines Are Binding
-
Courts will impose strict timelines on officials to redress caste-based grievances.
-
Practitioners should file representations alongside writ petitions and seek judicial direction for time-bound disposal to prevent further delay.
-
Always cite State of Karnataka v. Appaiah and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. to reinforce the state’s proactive duty.
-
Document all prior complaints to establish pattern of inaction.
-
Demand immediate interim relief under Article 226 where caste-based exclusion is ongoing.
