Two recent landmark verdicts by Indian courts give a ray of hope to all the weaker sections and civil society of India. One, on Feb. 13, 2012, by Gujarat High Court, in a case of Islami Relief Committee Gujarat versus State of Gujarat, in which after a decade of Gujarat pogrom-2002, liability of the State Government for compensating desecration, damage and destruction of the places of religious importance was ascertained by the Court. In the other verdict, in Vachathi Case, the District and Sessions Court, on Sep. 29, 2011, convicted all 269 accused officials for committing atrocities on Dalits and 17 for rape – the crime was committed in the Vachathi village of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu on June 20, 1992.
Both the above referred to cases have many similar features such as in both the cases the victims belonged to weaker section of society. In the former case the victims were Muslims and in the latter case the victims were Dalits. In both the cases, the respective States, which ideally should have defended the victims, opted to be on the other side of the game. In both the cases, the judicial process took painfully long time, and justice has come through after long wait, but both the verdicts proved sigh of relief to the victims and to the people who cherish civil rights.
Going by the details of both the cases, winning has not been easy and pursuing the cases not less than a struggle. In the former case, Islami Relief Committee Gujarat (IRCG) versus State of Gujarat case, IRCG which was prominently involved in providing relief, rehabilitation and legal assistance for the victims of Gujarat pogrom-2002, IRCG had made several representations before various forums including NHRC and Minority Commission on various issues including the issue of damage and destruction of religious places. Finally, IRCG preferred a PIL before Gujarat High Court in 2003 seeking compensation for damage and destruction of religious places.
In this petition IRCG provided a list of 572 places of worship which were desecrated and damaged throughout the State during the 2002 pogrom. IRCG had contended that the said damage occurred due to inaction and failure on the part of the State to protect the affected places of worship, therefore, the loss should be compensated by the State Government. For claiming compensation IRCG had relied on the reports of National Human Right Commission, published on April 1, 2002 and May 31, 2002 and also the Annual Report of year 2002-2003, wherein NHRC recorded the failure and inaction on the part of the State Government to protect the places of worship and recommended rehabilitation of the places of worship, which the State Government accepted in principle. It was further contended that as the losses sustained by residential premises and commercial premises during the communal violence were compensated, similar treatment should also be provided to the places of worship.
The State Government contended that the payment of compensation would be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of India, as the State is a “Secular State”. They also contended that, as almost all the places of worship excluding around 37 were rehabilitated, the petition had lost its significance. The State Government refused to accede to the petitioner’s request and continued with its stand of non-payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the places of worship. Further, though the High Court orally suggested to the state government to rehabilitate the remaining not-rehabilitated 37 places of worships, the State Government refused to do the same also.
Ultimately the High Court heard the petition on merits and gave the historic and landmark judgment on Feb. 8, 2012 in which the court not only asked the government to compensate the trusts managing the nearly 600 damaged mosques, temples and shrines, it also said the money should be realised from those who were responsible for the destruction. Also, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed that the state had failed to discharge its constitutional duty to protect a citizen’s right to meaningful life and religion.
While Vachathi case refers to a crime that happened on June 20, 1992 in the Vachathi village of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu. A team comprising 155 forest personnel, 108 policemen and six revenue officials entered the Dalit-dominated Vachathi village, searching for smuggled sandalwood. Under the pretext of conducting a search, the team ransacked the villagers’ property, destroyed their houses, killed their cattle, assaulted around 217 villagers, and raped 18 women.
Although the Constitution guarantees equality before laws, what these people faced in reality was far different. Officials ranging from district to state administration not only denied the happening of any such incidence but also made all the possible efforts to cover it up. Further the tribals were accused of smuggling sandalwood. The police refused to register an FIR stating that Government officials cannot do such wrong. A petition was filed in the High Court for investigation in the matter; in November the court gave an interim order to reconstruct the basic amenities and asked the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission to submit a report in two weeks. The Government adopted the policy of dragging the case unnecessarily by filing affidavits denying commission of any such atrocity by the duty bearers. Finally, the case was handed over to the CBI; the state appealed against this in the Supreme Court. The CBI booked the accused for crimes like rape, destruction of evidence, etc. under various Sections of Indian Penal Code.
The villagers filed a case against wrong doers after almost two months of the said incidence and much deliberation from Tamilnadu Tribal Association. For the next 6 years the case was with the district court without any further development. Finally, on Sep. 29, 2011, a special sessions court convicted all 269 accused officials for atrocity on Dalits and 17 for rape. Fifty-four of the accused had died by the time; the remaining 215 were sentenced to jail.
However weak and subjugated the victims may be, if they take up the legal way to protest against the oppressors and wrong doers, they can get justice. Instead of being silent subject of coercion and tyranny, people require to fight against any injustice and oppression in a way that is supported by law and the Constitution. If done consistently and vigorously, this process is bound to bring justice.
[The writer is Academic Associate at IIM-Ahmedabad]