Madras High Court.
Credit: iStock Photo
On September 29, the High Court of Madras delivered a crucial verdict in the case of L Nadhan vs State (2011), represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The case concerns the rights of Adivasis, particularly women’s lives and dignity, unjustly denied by the State. In this case, the State means three powerful departments: police, revenue, and forest bureaucracy. It’s well known that Adivasis are the most vulnerable and marginalised community in India. The successive governments, both the Union and states, have failed to uphold their rights in the justice framework.
The verdict is historic, aligning with other critical judicial pronouncements like Kailas & Others vs State of Maharashtra TR (2011) in the last three decades that uphold the Adivasis rights. The verdict in the present case is unique as it exposed the unlawful activities committed by the uniformed force against women in general and Adivasi women in particular.
The incident of sexual assault and rape of 18 women in Vachathi Village in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu was conveniently sidelined or ignored by the political and police elites at that time, registering the case only after the High Court intervention. Mainstream political parties in Tamil Nadu, both DMK and AIADMK, didn’t bother to file an FIR; it was a CPI(M) worker who, with the support of local organisations, brought this case to the court of law. On June 20, 1992, a collective team of police, revenue, and forest officials attacked the Vachathi villagers under the pretext of catching the sandalwood smugglers, leading to the uniformed officials taking 18 women and committing rape and sexual assault.
The officials threatened the Adivasi women and made systematic efforts to keep them quiet and bury the unlawful and inhuman act. The entire state machinery did not heed the representations and complaints made by the Tribal Association and the All India Women’s Association in Tamil Nadu. It was only after the PIL filed by A Nallasivan that the High Court of Madras in 1995 ordered a CBI inquiry on the basis of the SC/ST director Bhamathi’s report submitted to the NCST.
On September 29, 2011, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dharmpuri, convicted all 269 accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment ranging from 1–10 years with fines. It has been a long and tough legal battle for the Adivasi women, lacking strong political support or agency. The verdict is the result of certain committed individuals, sensitive judges, human rights activists, tribal associations, women’s associations, lawyers, civil society organisations, researchers, and, of course, the village people of Vachathi.
Justice P Velmurugan’s decision to visit the Vachathi village in March of this year before pronouncing the verdict is a rare and critical gesture by a judge in Independent India. Such visits, though occasional, are important for building trust among the Scheduled Tribes, who have been denied and deprived of rights both in colonial and, more so, post-colonial periods.
The court’s verdict has revealed the nexus between the political class, bureaucrats, and the real sandalwood smugglers and their corruption association. To quote the verdict, “In order to safeguard the actual smugglers and the bigshots, the revenue officials, police officials, and also the forest officials, with the help of the then government, played a big stage drama in which the innocent tribal women got affected much...” It directed stringent action against the DC, SP, and DFO of the relevant time and the payment of Rs 10 lakh for each victim/family along with job/self-employment.
The attitude of the political class, bureaucracy, and mainstream society towards Adivasis needs radical transformation. Even in this verdict, only erring officials received punishment, leaving aside the political class, the real culprits behind the illegal trade of sandalwood. In Kailas & Others vs State of Maharashtra TR (2011), the verdict rightly asserts that “the mentality of our countrymen towards these tribals must change, and they must be given the respect they deserve as the original inhabitants of India”.
This case has spanned three decades, and the compensation offered to Adivasi women is too little and too late. The belated justice indicates the need to remove structural and institutional bottlenecks that are holding back the judiciary from serving justice to the most marginalised sections of society in a timely manner. To undo the historical injustice accrued to the Adivasis, the Union and state governments can set up fast-track courts exclusively to deal with such cases.
(The author is an independent researcher and writer on governance and development)