Case in Brief:

Thaiyur village, in Gingee Taluk, Villupuram district, is home to nearly 350 dalit paraiyar community families and 750 caste hindu Vanniyar families. In this village there are two hindu temples, namely Sakthi Vinayahar Temple and Thaduthandavar Siva Temple. Both the temples which are common to both the community, are located in the Vanniyar infested area. For the last the 50 years, conflict used to rise over which community can conduct the festival in the first place. Every year during the festive season, the confict was resolved by allowing a child to choose from the two chit having the names of the two community. The chosen community was given the first priority to conduct the festival. Every year the temple festival and Ambedkar Birth day were celebrated by the dalit community. Hence on 14/04/2011, when the dalits approached the Police officials seeking permission to conduct the festival. But the police department refused to grant the permission and asked them to celebrate next year. But the Vanniyars decided to conduct the festival and as the dalit community opposed their move. Vanniyars filed an appeal with the High court and got an approval to conduct the festival. Dalits were denied to conduct the festival but the dominant caste hindus were given approval to conduct the festival with the due support and protection of the police department.

Legal Standard Breached:

1.       No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to - (a)  access  to  shops,  public  restaurants,  hotels  and  places  of  public entertainment. (15 (2)(a,b) of IC-FR).
2.       Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his/her duties required to be performed by him/her under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year [sec. 4 SC/ST (PoA) Act].
3.       Whoever denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to; - - shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. (sec. 3(1)(xiv) SC/ST PoA Act).
4.       No one shall be deprived of his/her right to life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary detention or imprisonment [Art. 21 IC-FR, Art. 9 UDHR, & Art. 9(1) ICCPR].
5.       Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person [Arts. 3 UDHR, Art. 6(1) ICCPR & Art. 5(b) CERD].
6.       No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment [Art. 5 UDHR and Art. 7 ICCPR].

Kanikkapatti village, Tarapuram Taluk, Tirupur District is home to nearly 140 dalit Arunthathiyar families. Most of the families were land less casual labourers. In this village, there is separate cemetery for the dominant caste hindu Kounder community people. Dalits were allotted separate cemetery by the government, which in itself is discriminatory and practice of un-touchability in nature. The people from Kounder community uses the dalits cemetery, but they won’t dalits to use their cemetery. In this scenario, one Sabaes, belongs to Kounder community laid a road through the dalits’ cemetery land to his farm land.

On 16/04/2011, all the affected 140 dalit families staged a protest and road block, opposing the encroachment and requesting its removal. Hence Tarapuram Thasildar Mr. Samyappan reached the place and promised them to take action regarding the encroachment. On the objection of the government officials, road laying work was stopped as a immediate solution. Police is negligent to take action against the encroacher. He was given only oral warning regarding the encroachment. 

Nathiya (25) w/o Veeran, resident of P. Maambakkam, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District, belongs to Dalit Paraiyar community. On 28/03/2011, Nathiya was admitted in the Ulundurpet Government Hospital for her third delivery and LSCS with sterilization was done to her on the same day. But she was feeling well from the day of sterilization and her health condition deteriorated steadily. But hospital staffs discharged her on 06/04/2011, saying the deteriorating health condition can be addressed with some tablets. From the day of discharge, she health condition became poor, she complained about stomach pain and developed severe allergic rashes. Hence she was admitted again in the Ulundurpet Government Hospital on 09/04/2011. Doctors said that one of the nerve was missed during sterilization and they again conducted one more operation on 14/04/2011. On 15/04/2011, in the hospital, she went to the bathroom for urination, but fainted and collapsed to death. As she have not returned for long, hospital staffs broke open the bathroom door and found her dead. During the same day, hospital staffs took her body and forcefully thrusted Veeran(Husband of Nathiya) and left her body in their house at P. Maambaakam. Considering this medical negligence and death due to wrong treatment, relatives and  villagers staged a protest to take action against the erred doctors. Nathiya’s body was taken for post mortem. As the police and the hospital officials promised to take action against the erred doctors  for medical negligence and to provide compensation for the death, the protestors withdraw the demonstration and collected her body and conducted the funeral. 

Case in Brief:

K. Pranaesh Anand (16), s/o K. Kaliyan, resident of Aathur village, Thirunavalur union, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupusram district, belongs to Dalit Paraiyar community. He was pursuing his 11^th std in the SRV Higher Secondary School, located in Rasipuram taluk, Namakkal District by staying in the school hostel. On 12/04/2011, 06.05am while Kaliyan is in election duty, he received a call from the SRV school hostel complaining that his son was evil and asked him to come soon. Since Kaliyan was on his election duty, he asked the informer to convey the news to her wife. Again after 10 minutes, he received a call saying that her wife (mother of Pranesh Anand) mobile was not reacheable and asked him to come to the school without delay. Hence around 07.05, Kaliyan managed to get leave from his higher authority and got ready to go to SRV School. He called back the number and sought the updation on his son’s health condition, they told that Pranesh Anand died in the hospital. On reaching hospital, Kaliyan found that his was strangulated to death and found fluids ran from his sons nostrils. When enquired about this to the warden and the hostel inmates, they told that his son had breathing problem in the early morning around 05am. As his breathing trouble persisted he was taken to the hospital and died before reaching the hospital. The suspicion of murder grew stronger when Kaliyan noticed nail cut marks in one of the hostel mate of Pranesh Anand. Even before the tragedy, Pranesh complained about the sexual harassment of the hostel warden and the caste discrimination by the fellow inmates. In the school notice board the students scored marks were displayed along with their community name. As Kaliyan and his relatives protested and refused to receive the body seeking a fair investigation in the suspicious death of his son, Police officials promised a fair investigation in the death and severe action against the culprits.

Legal Standard Breached:

1.       Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
   amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
   description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.[Sec. 304A of IPC].
2.       Murder is an offence punishable under section 302 IPC, and any person who commits any offence under the section 302 IPC punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a member of a Scheduled Caste, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine (sec. 3(2)(v) SC/ ST (PoA) Act).
3.       No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to - (a)  access  to  shops,  public  restaurants,  hotels  and  places  of  public entertainment. (15 (2)(a,b) of IC-FR).
4.       Whoever  commits,  the  offence  of  criminal  intimidation  shall  be  punished  with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (Sec. 506 of IPC).
5.       No one shall be deprived of his/her right to life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary detention or imprisonment [Art. 21 IC-FR, Art. 9 UDHR, & Art. 9(1) ICCPR].
6.       Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person [Arts. 3 UDHR, Art. 6(1) ICCPR & Art. 5(b) CERD].
7.       No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment [Art. 5 UDHR and Art. 7 ICCPR].
8.       Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year. (Sec. 4 of SC/ST PoA Act).