People's Democracy

FIGHT AGAINST UNTOUCHABILITY

Madras HC Pronounces Significant Verdict

S P Rajendran

JUSTICE K Chandru of the Madurai bench of Madras High Court recently delivered a verdict --- in a case relating to dalit people of Uthapuram --- which has been hailed as highly significant. In his verdict pronounced on March 20, 2012, the judge ordered the Madurai district administration to issue suitable orders within two weeks from the day for implementation of all the demands included in the October 20, 2011 agreement between dalit people and caste Hindus of Uthapuram village in Madurai district.

The demands first to be conceded are the creation of a bus shelter, removal of obstruction in the pathway and improvement of drainage system in dalit hamlet of the village. The authorities will also see that terms of the agreement between the two parties are honoured. As suggested by the Madurai superintendent of police regarding withdrawal of criminal cases involving the two parties, authorities would urge the government to issue appropriate orders for withdrawal of cases in compliance with the legal requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code. A decision in this regard was to be taken within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order’s copy, and the first respondent (state) is to issue appropriate orders to the district administration to withdraw the cases. The SP Madurai would monitor the happenings in the village and take appropriate corrective action whenever necessary. He would be responsible for implementing the agreement between the two sections of the village. 

NEED FOR

DIRECT ACTION

The case in which this historic verdict has come involved the government of Tamilnadu, Madurai district administration, the police and the caste Hindu groups, and was filed by dalit people in 2010.

In his judgement Justice K Chandru referred to the historic struggles of Martin Luther King in the USA and Dr Ambedkar in India, and also the constitution of India’s intervention against untouchability.

Elaborating the necessity of direct action for eradication of untouchability, the judge made a passionate appeal. He said he was convinced that it would be effective in the matter of uprooting untouchability.

About the constitutional and legal measures against untouchability, the judge detailed how the Indian constitution is perhaps the only constitution where, in the chapter on fundamental rights, a provision has been incorporated making certain practices an offence. He then referred to Article 17 in detail and the Constituent Assembly debates on it.

But the ever increasing atrocities against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes made the parliament enact the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The objects and reasons appended to the Act said:

“Because of the awareness created amongst the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes through spread of education, etc, they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and them mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the government allotted land by the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests.”

APEX COURT’S

OBSERVATIONS

The cancerous growth of the caste system had had its echoes in the Supreme Court also and it made the following observation: "The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly."

Noticing the continuing practice of untouchability in many forms despite the constitutional injunctions and the bureaucracy’s lethargy in implementation of the laws, the Supreme Court observed the following in Arumugam Servai Vs State of Tamilnadu (2011):

"We would also like to mention the highly objectionable two tumbler system prevalent in many parts of Tamilnadu. This system is that in many teashops and restaurants there are separate tumblers for serving tea or other drinks to scheduled caste persons and non-scheduled caste persons. In our opinion, this is highly objectionable, and is an offence under the SC/ST Act, and hence those practicing it must be criminally proceeded against and given harsh punishment if found guilty. All administrative and police officers will be accountable and departmentally proceeded against if, despite having knowledge of any such practice in the area under their jurisdiction, they do not launch criminal proceedings against the culprits."

While detailing the case launched by dalit people of Uthapuram, Justice Chandru praised the efforts made by the Tamilnadu Untouchability Eradication Front (TNUEF) and All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA). Ordering the district administration to take necessary steps to implement the agreement of Uthapuram villagers, he also issued a direction about payment of compensation to the affected dalit people. He said as the parties have reached a compromise on the major social issues and also agreed to withdraw the criminal cases, the district administration must grant compensations to the scheduled caste people without waiting for the completion of any trial. He asked that due amounts must be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any amounts were already paid as compensation, it may be adjusted and the balance paid.

The court also praised Madurai SP, Asra Garg, for his untiring efforts for a resolution of the dispute and for brokering peace between the two warring groups. The court also placed on record the services rendered by counsels, viz U Nirmala Rani, C K Rajan and T Lajapathi Rai, in helping the court.

The Uthapuram experience has been hailed as an example showing how the will of the people can find solutions even if the state fails to intervene.