Allahabad High Court has ruled against mentioning caste in police records and ordered strict action on caste stickers on vehicles, stressing that deep-rooted social divisions continue to shape public perception and influence law enforcement practices in society.
The Allahabad High Court instructed the Uttar Pradesh government and its Director General of Police (DGP) to revise police manuals to prevent the disclosure of caste in investigations and related public records.
Justice Vinod Diwakar emphasized the need to amend the Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR) to explicitly prohibit caste-based slogans and identifiers on all private and public vehicles, including the imposition of fines for non-compliance.
The Court ordered,
“The entries, in paragraph and column pertaining to the requirement of caste or tribe shall stand deleted, whereas the Mother’s Name shall be added along with the name of father and husband in all the aforesaid FORMATS annexed with the counter affidavit filed by Director General of Police, UP,”
Furthermore, the caste column on notice boards at police stations is to be removed, with exceptions only in cases where mentioning caste is legally required, such as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The Court clarified that these directives apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh and are optional for the central government, which was not part of this case.
The Court argued that caste is not only a matter of discrimination but also a key element of identity and power dynamics in society. It rejected the police’s argument that caste identification aids in avoiding confusion during investigations.
The Court remarked,
“In the first quarter of the 21st century, the police still rely on caste as a means of identification. It’s unfortunate. This is particularly untenable when modern tools such as body cameras, mobile cameras, fingerprints, Aadhar cards, mobile numbers, and parental details (Mother and Father, both) are available. In addition, the Formats themselves already contain extensive descriptive fields relating to the accused, including sex, date/year of birth, build, height (in centimetres), complexion, identification marks, deformities/peculiarities, teeth, hair, eyes, habits, dress habits, language/ dialect, burn marks, leukoderma, moles, scars, and tattoos, if any. Therefore, this Court is not impressed with the reasoning of the Director General of Police,”
Addressing the argument that amendments would require intervention by the Union government or the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the Court stated that public order is a state subject, thus empowering the State to modify official documents.
It added,
“In a caste-ridden society where deep-rooted social divisions continue to shape both public perception and law enforcement practices, it becomes both necessary and appropriate to re-examine the practice of recording caste and religion in police reports and public documents,”
In northern India, it is common for individuals to display caste identifiers on their vehicles, homes, and more.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Merger Of Tanti Caste With Scheduled Caste (SC) Category Is Bad In Law
The Allahabad High Court took up this issue while reviewing a quashing petition related to illegal possession and transportation of liquor, noting that the investigating officer had included the accused’s caste in the report and sought justification from the DGP regarding its relevance.
The DGP defended the practice, but the Court strongly criticized this position, stating,
“In the Court’s view, the DGP, coming from a third-world background, appears to have little exposure to the complex realities of Indian society and the demands of professional policing. True legal and professional acumen necessarily requires an understanding of society its nature, its functioning, and its constitutional values. Yet, despite holding the state’s highest police office, he conducted himself like an ivory-tower policeman, detached from constitutional morality, and eventually retired merely as a bureaucrat in uniform.”
On societal caste divides, the Court noted that law enforcement agencies are not immune to societal biases, and emphasized the need to cultivate investigative impartiality and enforcement neutrality in a society where caste plays a significant role.
The Court opined that documenting or declaring an accused’s caste without legal relevance amounts to identity profiling, which perpetuates prejudice, skews public perception, undermines fundamental rights, and violates constitutional morality.
“They often reflect, reproduce, and sometimes intensify caste-based prejudices. It becomes necessary to deal with the cognitive behaviour of law enforcement officials in India when influenced by caste-ridden thought, combining insights from the conduct infused by social psychology, and behavioural patterns reflected in contemporary cases. This is evident from discrimination and segregation in the education and justice departments that remain rampant across India, driving inequality in education, life opportunities, and in justice delivery system.”
The Court also highlighted the rise of caste identifiers in both public and digital spaces, describing it as a coded assertion of social power that contradicts the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
It noted,
“In the northern part of India, in States like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and parts of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar individuals commonly mark their cars, bikes, and sometimes homes with caste identifiers. Vehicles adorned with caste emblems, slogans or even warnings,”
Moreover, the Court commented on social media trends, indicating that platforms like Instagram, YouTube Shorts, and Facebook Reels have provided caste-identified individuals with a venue for performance.
The Court stated,
“These reels often romanticize caste aggression and dominance, rural masculinity, and regressive honour codes. The sociopsychological, cultural, and legal dimensions of such behaviour reveal how the assertion of caste in public domains undermines constitutional morality and reflects an identity crisis rooted in historical superiority and modern insecurity,”
In this context, it called for stronger provisions in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to identify and act against caste-glorifying and hate-inducing content on social media.
The Court also noted that certain groups, driven by misguided caste pride, have erected signboards glorifying caste and labeling specific areas as caste territories. It directed the immediate removal of such signs and demanded strict measures to prevent their erection in the future.
Interestingly, the Court requested the State Chief Secretary to share a copy of its order with the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister for awareness.
Advocates Prashant Sharma and Surendra Pratap Singh represented the accused, while Advocate Amrit Raj Chaurasiya represented the State.
Case Title: Praveen Chetri v State of UP and Another
Read Attachment