The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant ruling on July 14, suspended the one-year jail term of an accused in a caste-based abuse case while taking serious note of ongoing discrimination in access to drinking water for Scheduled Caste communities.
The case dates back to December 3, 2016, when the accused allegedly entered the agricultural lands of the complainants, Muniammal (PW1) and another (PW2), and hurled casteist abuses while threatening to kill them. The Puliankudi police registered the case (Crime No. 438 of 2016), and after trial, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tenkasi, convicted Thirumalaisamy under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing him to one year in prison. However, he was acquitted of charges under Section 506(2) IPC (criminal intimidation) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which pertains to intentional insult or intimidation in a public place.
Court’s Observations on Legal Aspects
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the incident occurred in private agricultural land, not in “public view,” a necessary element for conviction under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The court noted that the trial court had acquitted the accused under Section 3(1)(s) but convicted him under Section 3(1)(r), raising questions over the interpretation of “public view.” Despite these legal grounds, the court acknowledged that the appeal could not be heard immediately and thus suspended the sentence, imposing strict bail conditions.
The accused was directed to execute a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties and report before the Tenkasi court monthly. The court also recorded an undertaking from the accused that he would not intimidate the complainant.
A key contention was whether the abuse occurred in “public view” as required under the SC/ST Act. The defense argued it happened on private farmland, while the prosecution maintained it was publicly audible. The High Court noted inconsistencies in the trial court’s interpretation but allowed suspension of the sentence pending appeal.
Court’s Stern Remarks on Caste Discrimination in Water Access
During the hearing, the defacto complainant, Muniammal, expressed fears of retaliation if the accused was released. She also highlighted a deeper social issue—discrimination in accessing water from a public tap in Thalaivankottai village. The court was shocked to learn that Scheduled Caste residents had to wait until others finished using the tap, reflecting entrenched caste hierarchies even in basic resource distribution.
Justice Manjula remarked, “Natural resources like water are common to all. It is surprising and pathetic to note in this scientific age that some communities need to compete with others and stand second in order to get their share from resources dedicated to the public good.”
The Court added, “But people in authority cannot be mute spectators and be indifferent to these tales. Being so, would amount to contributing or subscribing to these meanness of minds. Nor are they expected to do some stunts for a make belief that they are the best Samaritans and that they do something heroic. What is needed is some practical solution and noiseless action. Sometimes the serenity of action is lost in empty noises. Being aware and sensitive of these realities and do things which can be done in the best of the powers vested in the authorities is the need of the hour.”
The court emphasized that access to clean water is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life) and condemned the systemic oppression faced by marginalized communities.
Taking suo motu cognizance of the issue, the court directed the Tenkasi District Collector to ensure:
- No discrimination in water access based on caste.
- Sufficient water taps in all streets with equitable distribution.
- Strict enforcement preventing any community from monopolizing public water resources.
A compliance report was ordered by July 31, with the case posted for further review on the same date.
While the order provides temporary relief to the accused, its broader significance lies in the court’s forceful intervention against caste-based discrimination in essential services. The observations highlight the judiciary’s role in addressing socio-legal inequalities beyond individual cases, ensuring that constitutional rights translate into ground realities. The Tenkasi administration’s response will now be closely watched for tangible changes in water access for marginalized communities.
Reach us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com
Also Read: