Madurai- In a ruling that goes far beyond the boundaries of an ordinary criminal case, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a judgment that is simultaneously a legal verdict, a civic lesson, and a constitutional reminder to the State of Tamil Nadu. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, presiding over Criminal Original Petition No. 22813 of 2025, did not merely decide whether to quash a prosecution. She used the occasion to demand something far more durable: that the State ensure every child in Tamil Nadu knows who Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was, and why he matters to India.

The case traces back to April 14, 2018, Ambedkar Jayanti. At the Pulikuthi Bus Stand in Sivagangai district, Tamil Nadu, posters bearing the photograph of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had been put up to commemorate his birth anniversary. According to the prosecution, the first accused, G. Rajesh alias Rajeshkumar, tore one of those posters and urinated upon it. The second accused, S. Vijay alias Vijayakumar, recorded the act on video and circulated it through a WhatsApp group called "Nallava Boys Group."

The complaint was lodged by Amuthan alias Chithiravelu, Town Secretary of Viduthalai Siruthai Katchi, Devakottai. On the basis of that complaint, the police registered a First Information Report , invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Following investigation, a final report was filed and the matter came before the Additional District and Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of PCR Act Cases, Sivagangai.

The Compromise Petition And Why the Court Refused to Simply Accept It

Years later, on November 17, 2025, both accused filed a Joint Compromise Memo with the complainant and approached the High Court seeking quashment of the proceedings. Their grounds were straightforward: the dispute had been amicably settled through the intervention of elders, the complainant had no subsisting grievance, and continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose.

Justice Victoria Gowri did not dismiss the petition but she did not accept it either. Not yet.

The court made a pointed observation. When the two accused were asked in open court what they knew about Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, their answers revealed a near-total ignorance. They knew, in a vague sense, that he was a legal luminary. Beyond that, they had nothing. They did not know his role in drafting the Constitution. They did not know his scholarship in economics and law. They did not know his decades-long struggle against caste oppression. They did not know what he had built, or what he had endured to build it.

The court found this disclosure deeply significant. In its order, it observed that the alleged act, whatever its motive , was at the very least sustained by ignorance of a colossal order.

The Court Sets Unprecedented Conditions

Rather than closing the matter or sending it back to trial, Justice Victoria Gowri charted a third path, one that the order itself describes as reformative. On December 19, 2025, the court issued an interim order laying down a set of conditions that had to be fulfilled before the compromise could even be considered.

The court noted that the government had already paid Rs. 50,000 as statutory compensation to the complainant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Since the complainant was now seeking to withdraw from the proceedings, the court directed that this compensation be returned by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of "Adi Dravida Welfare, District Collectorate, Sivagangai District."

For the two accused, the court prescribed the following: each of them was to purchase 101 books in Tamil on the life of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar; read one copy themselves and retain it; distribute the remaining 100 copies to students of Classes 11 and 12 at Murugappa Government Higher Secondary School, T. Kallupatti and if books remained, to distribute them to students from Class 10 downwards. They were required to obtain written acknowledgment from the Headmaster of the school as proof of compliance. Each accused was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to the Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai.

Thirty Questions in a Courtroom

On January 23, both accused appeared in person before Justice Victoria Gowri. They produced documentary proof of compliance , receipts for books purchased, acknowledgment from the school Headmaster confirming distribution, and payment receipts from the Adyar Cancer Institute.

The court did not stop there. It conducted an in-camera oral examination of both accused. Thirty questions each were posed, covering the life, scholarship, public service and constitutional contributions of Dr. Ambedkar. The order records that both accused answered satisfactorily, demonstrating that they had not merely purchased and distributed the books as a ritualistic act, but had genuinely read and absorbed their content.

The court's order records its observations in direct terms: both petitioners, aged approximately 26 and 29, displayed visible shame and remorse. Their demeanor before the court was not defiant, it was penitential. The court found their repentance to be real and their transformation evident.

Why This Case Could Be Quashed at All

Counsel for the petitioners relied on three Supreme Court judgments: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017), and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019). These decisions establish that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences in appropriate circumstances, provided the dispute is substantially personal in character and quashment would serve the ends of justice.

The court acknowledged the tension. An offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act carries serious social overtones and cannot be treated on par with an ordinary private quarrel. The court stated plainly that it was conscious of this and that it had, for precisely this reason, refused to accept the compromise mechanically in December 2025.

Having put the accused through a process of genuine accountability, the court concluded that this case had moved beyond the stage of mere compromise. It had become, in the court's words, a case of demonstrable repentance and measurable reformation. The complainant had chosen reconciliation over retribution. The corrective purpose of the prosecution had already been substantially achieved. Continuing the trial would no longer meaningfully advance the cause of justice.

The proceedings in Special Case No. 8 of 2020 were accordingly quashed.

Tamil Nadu Government Directed to Teach Ambedkar in Schools

The most far-reaching part of the judgment is not the quashment. It is what came after it.

Justice Victoria Gowri, invoking the court's concern for the larger public interest, suo motu impleaded the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, as Respondents 4 and 5 in the petition. She then directed them to take necessary policy steps to introduce appropriate lessons on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Social Science curriculum of the State syllabus, for students from Class 3 to Class 10.

The prescribed content covers four areas: his role as Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India; his contribution to the constitutional vision of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity; his role in the freedom movement and democratic nation-building; and his scholarly achievements in the fields of economics, law and social thought.

The court directed that these inclusions be given effect from the academic year 2027–28, subject to pedagogical planning, academic structuring and compliance with applicable norms. It made clear that the purpose of the direction is not political glorification, but constitutional education. The State government is required to appear before the court on January 21, 2027 and file an elaborate compliance report detailing the steps taken.