(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to G.O.(Ms) No.313, dated 06.10.2025 issued by the first respondent herein and quash the same as illegal.)

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari seeking interference with G.O.(Ms) No.313, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 06.10.2025 and to quash the same. The said Government Order had been issued to identify residential areas, streets, roads and water bodies with caste/objectionable names and rename them with names of leaders, who have achieved fame owing to their selfless service to the society.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been contended by the petitioner that the said Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.313, dated 06.10.2025, has been issued only to take political advantage by disturbing communal harmony among the people at the time of assembly election, which was scheduled at that particular point of time. It was further stated that the directions issued were against the principles of natural justice, since they stipulate just 21 days time to get objections from the general public after the notification in the gazette of proposed name changes and that if objections are received then within a period of further 21 days, the same would be considered and a fresh second gazette notification would be published by the District Collector. It is alleged that these stipulations are only an eyewash and the actual objections would not be addressed. It was also contended that the Government Order is against public policy, as it proposes to rename residential areas, streets, road and water bodies with the names of leaders and favourites of the ruling party. It had been stated that they could have alternatively given names of Tamil Literate Scholars of Sangam period or of Nayanmargal, Azhwargal, Samayakuravargal or Siddhargal or such other eminent persons. It was under these circumstances, a challenge has been made to the issuance of G.O.(Ms) No.313, dated 06.10.2025.

3.1. When the writ petition had come up for consideration, an order of stay had been granted. This necessitated the respondents to file W.M.P.(MD) No.28696 of 2025 to vacate the order of interim stay. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking to vacate the stay, it had been contended that the said Government Order is constitutionally valid, legally sustainable, socially progressive and administratively fair.

                     3.2. It had been stated that removal of objectionable or derogatory caste-based names is required and it is a reasonable administrative exercise consistent with the Directive Principles of State policy. It had also been contended that detailed guidelines have been issued in the Government Order for removal of derogatory castebased names for residential areas, streets, water bodies and other public establishments. It had been stated that the said initiative is to promote equality, to eradicate caste-based discrimination and to ensure that public spaces reflect inclusiveness and neutrality.

                     3.3. It had been further stated that there was an earlier Government Order issued in the year 1978, which had also directed removal of caste-based names from roads and streets across the State of Tamil Nadu and that consequent to such Government Order, castebased names had also been removed from roads and streets. It had also been stated that provision had been given for raising objections and for addressing the said objections in manner known to law and to issue a second gazette notification after examining the representations/objections.

                     3.4. It had been stated that various names including Adidravidar Colony, Aruthanthiar Colony, Harijan Colony, Sarayapattarai Theru, Night Soil Depot Street and Sakkiliar Colony have been identified for change. It had been stated that out of 145 Municipal Corporations, 24 Municipal Corporations in the State and 169 Local Bodies have passed resolutions in their respective areas proposing renaming of 69 residential habitations, 40 roads, 1098 streets, 57 water bodies and 23 other social infrastructure assets. Out of the 479 Town Panchayats in the State, all of them have passed resolution proposing to rename 23 residential habitations, 2082 streets and 125 water bodies.

                     3.5. With respect to Greater Chennai Corporation, it has been proposed to rename one residential habitation, 269 streets, 22 water bodies and 2 other social infrastructure assets. It had also been stated that out of 12,408 village panchayats, 8,062 village panchayats have passed resolution to change the names of 8,171 habitations. Additionally, 349 road names, 17,644 street names, 2,095 water body names and 10 public institution names have been identified for change, in accordance with the guidelines issued in the said Government Order.

                     3.6. As an illustration, it had been stated that the Harijan Colony in Chengalpattu District had been renamed as “Thiruvalluvar Street”, Arunthathiyar Theru in Namakkal District has been renamed as “Kamarajar Nagar”, Irular Colony in Thiruvannamalai District has been renamed as “Kabilar Theru”, Narikuravar Colony in Ranipet District has been renamed as “Perarignar Anna Theru” and Salavaiyalar Colony in Salem has been renamed as “Roja Nagar”. Similar renaming of streets and roads of habitations had also been given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to vacate the stay. In effect, it had been stated that it is only a progressive step ensuring inclusiveness and neutrality in the names of roads, streets and other public places.

4. We have heard arguments advanced by Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General for the respondents.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General reiterated the submissions made in the affidavit and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to vacate the stay. We have carefully considered the same. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.313, had been passed on 06.10.2025 issuing guidelines, which should be followed for renaming caste-based names, which exist in roads, in streets, in habitations, in water bodies and in public establishments. It had been further stated in the Government Order that this exercise is only an exercise to remove caste identity and to rename them by retaining the names independently or by giving alternate names of leaders, who had fought for social justice.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in his argument and also in his affidavit, has stated that the names of eminent persons could also be included as alternate names. Once an alternate name proposal has been forwarded, then he cannot dispute the fundamental concept that the names are required to be changed or rather the caste names are required to be deleted. It is only an issue of whether to retain the original name or if an alternate is to be suggested, whether they should be who according to the respondents, persons of eminence who had fought for social justice or according to the petitioner those who have eminence in Literature and such other subjects.

8.1. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to vacate the stay, a few examples have been given as to the alternate names, which have been given after the names have been changed. A perusal of the same shows that Harijan Colony in Chengalpattu had been renamed as “Thiruvalluvar Street”. We can never dispute that Thiruvalluvar is a person of eminence, whose name, if included, would only add pride to the individuals in that particular colony. We can never identify the saint with any political party. Similarly, Irular Colony in Thiruvannamalai had been renamed as “Kabilar Theru”, again the name of an eminence person. Salavaiyalar Colony in Salem had been renamed as “Roja Nagar”, which only signifies the name of a flower. Of course, Arunthathiyar Theru in Namakkal had been renamed as “Kamarajar Nagar” and Narikuravar Colony in Ranipet had been renamed as “Perarignar Anna Theru”, but they are both former Chief Ministers of this State, who had been elected through a democratic process by a majority of the electorate, who voted them to power. There cannot be any dispute in suggesting their names as alternate names.

                    8.2. Similarly, Adi Dravidar Colony in Vellore has been renamed as “Kambar Street” and Sweeper Colony in Tirunelveli had been renamed as “Bharathidasan Street”. They are all names of poets. Aruthathiyar Kudiyiruppu in Kancheepuram had been renamed as “Avvaiyar Kudiyiruppu”. Again there cannot be any controversy or query raised over the said name. Narikuravar Colony in Thiruvallur had been renamed as “Kattabomman Theru”. Malai Vedan Nagar in Sivagangai had been renamed as “Malligai Nagar”, which is a neutral name of a flower. Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Kudiyiruppu Colony in Kallakurichi had been renamed as “Kakkan Nagar”. It is common knowledge that the late Minister Kakkan is much revered for his honesty, simplicity and for upholding principles of good conduct in public life. It is thus seen that the alternate names given are neutral names of persons, who have distinguished themselves and are revered and respected. The examples go further and we would extract the entire illustration:







                     8.3. In fact, the existing names can never be uttered in open Court. They are so derogatory and it is only appropriate that they are renamed. This step should have been taken many years ago. The Government should not have waited all these years to introduce these changes. We would also call upon the Government to identify further names, which require to be renamed and bring out a further Government Order bringing about change in the names which have been left out and of those areas which have been left out in G.O.(Ms) No.313, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

9. We do not find any objection in the said Government Order in the implementation. It is contended that just 21 days notice is given for any objections to be raised. We hold that there cannot be an indefinite number of days, which could be given. It could be 40, it could be 50, but there must be some limit. And in the Government Order, 21 days had been stated.

10. It had been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said Government Order is not similar to the earlier Government Order of the year 1978. It is only to supplement the earlier Government Order, a new Government Order has been passed. We would now call upon the Government to pass a fresh Government Order to identify further places and rename them. This is a continuous process and it has to be continued by the Government.

11. It had been stated that there would be confusion caused by removal of the caste names. There would be confusion only in the minds of those who retain the names of the caste in their minds, but there would not be any confusion in the minds of the persons who remove caste from their minds. They can identify names without the caste and there would not be any difficulty after a period of time, as caste names will disappear into oblivion.

12. It has been stated in the written arguments that there would be pride in stating a residential area as “Sakkiliyan Kulam”. We do not agree with that particular statement made. There should be a change in the mindset of the general public. If the petitioner does not want to change his mindset or accept change as a way forward, we would leave him to brood over his alleged grief. We would not offer him any solace.

13. It is only appropriate that this change is brought out by way of a Government Order. In fact, there should have been a representation by the residents themselves to voluntarily call upon the Government to change the caste names. We hold that the writ petition does not warrant any further consideration.

14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD) No.28696 of 2025 seeking stayto vacate the stay stands allowed and W.M.P.(MD) No.22744 of 2025 seeking stay stands dismissed. W.M.P.(MD) No.22742 of 2025 to dispense with the production of G.O.(Ms) No.313, dated 06.10.2025 issued by the first respondent herein for the time being is ordered. There shall be no order as to costs.