The triumph of Vachathi over a hostile state

The triumph of Vachathi over a hostile state

Why in the News?

The Madras High Court’s judgment recently upheld the human rights of the people of Vachathi in Tamil Nadu by recognising that coordinated and large-scale repression by uniformed forces cannot take place without orders from the top levels of the government.

What was the issue?

1. Vachathi is a remote village of Adivasis in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.
2. On June 20, 1992, nearly 300 uniformed officials set violence on the village on the pretext of unearthing smuggled sandalwood. 
3. During the violence, 18 women including a woman who was pregnant were raped and 90 women, 28 children and 15 men were illegally confined in the Forest Ranger’s office. 
4. The custodians of law ordered the “Oor Gounder” (the village chief) to strip the women. 
5. Due to continued plunder and violence by the officials, villagers were forced to flee to the forests.
6. The government machinery down to the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Conservator of Forests failed to take action despite representations.

The High Court intervention:

1. The Madras HC ordered for an investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation, after a public interest litigation was filed in the court.
2. This became the rarest case in the legal history where all 215 accused (the survivors of the 269 accused), government and law enforcement personnel stand convicted en masse of offences.
3. All of the accused were booked under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Indian Penal Code. 
4. Punishments involving rigorous imprisonment ranging from one to 10 years with fine has also been imposed.
5. The HC fixed the responsibility on the state to pay the enhanced compensation of ₹10 lakh and to ensure a job for each rape survivor. 

Gross lacunae in the criminal justice system:

1. No special procedures, evidentiary principles and criminal liability have been prescribed in law for organised crimes by state actors.
2. There is a need for the prosecutor to prove the guilt of each of those accused as if an individual offence had been committed.
3. Principle 24 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials states that:

• Law enforcement agencies must adopt measures to ensure that superior officers are held responsible if they have not taken actions to prevent/report their subordinates who have restored to violation of human rights.
• Such shift of onus on top level officials are not present in our criminal system

4. Inter-American Court of Human Rights in South America: judgments
   1. Being ignorant of actual occurrence of incidence cannot be claimed to be not guilty.
   2. The responsibility of superiors lies in exercising adequate supervision and control that includes
      1. Knowledge of risk by state officials.
      2. The duty to know of the existence of a real and immediate risk to life and/or physical integrity.
      3. The reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that risk.
5. Article 28 of the Rome Statute: followed by International Court of Justice
   1. Follows the principle of command responsibility
6. The new criminal laws proposed recently to decolonise old laws do not recognise organised violence by state agents as a separate class of crime, and state violence as a colonial legal was failed to be acknowledged.