Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2. Though our country has developed a lot, caste system, racism, caste discrimination and untouchability have not changed. Few months back, one Divya, aged about 20 years belonging to Vanniyar caste and one Ilavarasan, aged about 20 years belonging to Scheduled Caste community had a love affair and got married on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, they lived in Natham Village, Dharmapuri District. But, the relatives of Divya and her community people did not accept their marriage and created several problems. Even some Caste based Political parties criticized the inter-caste marriage of Ilavarasan and Divya. Further, some leaders from the caste based Political parties created animosity between the upper caste people and the Schedule caste people through their speeches, interview and writings. Due to such type of social pressures, Divya's father is said to have committed suicide.
2.4. Our great leaders like Dr.Ambedkar and Thanthai Periyar greatly fought for abolition of caste discrimination and they also taught to abolish caste discrimination and their teachings mostly say that inter-caste marriages will be the foremost source for abolition of caste system. Further, the Government also provides aid to those who are doing inter-case marriages.
2.5. Till date, caste system, caste clashes survive everywhere in India and some caste based leaders are creating caste discrimination problems and they are all against inter-caste marriage and are giving speeches against inter-caste marriage, which leads to several problems and in turn, that has led to the gory Dharmapuri District incident on 12.11.2012, where, three Dalit Villages were entirely collapsed. Some of the caste based political parties very often kindle castism and racism in the minds of the public.

In the above circumstances, having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this Court for the above said relief.

3. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9, has a filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:

3.1. After the marriage of Divya with Ilavarasan on 07.11.2012, there was a misunderstanding between the Dalit Community people and the Vanniar Community people. Further, Thiru.Nagaraj, father of Divya, committed suicide in the night on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, people belonging to Vanniar Community attacked the Dalit Community Village, namely, Natham Colony, Anna Nagar, Kondampatty and Chengalmedu in Dharmapuri District and destroyed the properties in the Village. The Government took immediate action and sent the Inspector of Police, Western Region accompanied by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and three Superintendents of Police. Heavy Police bandobust had been provided in the above said Villages, apart from the fact that police forces were deployed in various places of Dharmapuri District, in order to avoid any untoward incident. The Government took utmost precaution and prevented spreading of law and order problems to neighbouring Districts, after which, normalcy was restored in that area. Pursuant to the death of Ilavarasan on 04.07.2013, there was heavy police bandobust in the above mentioned Villages and also in sensitive places of Dharmapuri District. Hence, law and order situation is now under control.

26. In the above backdrop, it is to be examined whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person to espouse the cause of a common issue, though it may be larger, when the incident took place in a village and when it assumed a greater dimension creating communal problems for the greater issues of discrimination on the basis of caste and creed.

27. In this context, it is to be stated that sometimes, Public Interest Litigation can be aimed to achieve the benefit of the last and lonely and those whose social backwardness is the reason for non-access to the court. If there is any occasion to go before the court to file a Public Interest Litigation to redress a common grievance on social issues, without any political gain and popularity, when it is done in the right spirit to bring out the social issues to the court, instead of looking into the technical aspects, the Supreme Court, on many occasions, has taken up such litigations and granted relief to the public, at large. When a Parliamentarian has taken up such a cause without any political gain and popularity and only with a cause to eliminate discrimination and obnoxious situation prevailing in the society, it cannot be said that Public Interest Litigation is filed for the sake of popularity and personal gain. Even so, the decision in Vinoy Kumar's case lays down that it should be shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief. However, as this case has its own sensitivities, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.