IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08/04/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM CRL O.P.No.28886 OF 2003 1. Rajendran 2. Madhiyazhagi 3. Kumar 4. Udayakumar 5. Dharapathi 6. Rajasekar 7. Pazahnichaami 8. Jeyapal 9. Thamizhselvam 10.Chinnayyan 11.Arupulli 12.Azhagumalai .. Petitioners -Vs- The State rep. By the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (Crime No.7 of 2003), Musiri Taluk, Trichy District. .. Respondent For petitioners : Miss P.T.Asha For respondent : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Govt. Advocate. For intervenor :M/s.V.Chandrakanthan & Srividya Amicus Curiae : Miss R.Vaigai Court assisted by: Mr.N.R.Chandran, Advocate General. :O R D E R This case reflects the shocking episode, wherein one Suganthi, working as a Senior Telecom Office Assistant in the C.G.M.Office, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, and her mother Krishnammal, a widow working as a Headmistress in an Elementary School, were directed by six persons, claiming themselves to be Kattapanchayatdars of Valayapatti village, who imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- upon them, for not having complied with their direction to join her husband, and made to repeatedly prostrate before them, in order to reduce the quantum of fine. Accordingly, Suganthi prostrated before the said panchayatdars from 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. on 03.08.2003 continuously, requesting the panchayatdars to reduce the fine amount and, at last, graciously, the kattapanchayatdars reduced the fine of Rs.50,000/- and finalised the same at Rs.19,058.75 and only after collecting the same, the kattapanchayatdars released and relieved the mother Krishnammal and the daughter Suganthi. 2. On the basis of a written complaint given by Suganthi, on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy, a case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Musiri Taluk, Trichy, for the offences under Sections 498-A,342,384,385,406 506I and 149 of IPC, against her husband, in-laws and the kattapanchayatdars. Consequently, all the persons, including kattapanchayatdars are now before this Court, seeking for anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in the above case. 3. The history of crime is as old as mankind itself. This evil has been existing since the dawn of civilisation. The primitive society had some basic customs, which were respected by all the members of the society. Respect for customs was actuated, that any one, who violated the custom, would be punished by the God. 4. As civilisation advanced, new ideas regarding the individual rights and the duties developed and crime was no longer considered as an offence against an individual but a revolt against the whole society. 5. Soon, the State took upon itself the right to book and punish the offender. Crime began to be classified and penal laws were enacted to deal with the criminals. However, the rising crime rate had made the criminal justice system, a subject of heated debates, since the said system was unable to check the same. 6. But, what appears today to be certain is that more police, more prisons, more laws and more Courts do not achieve the object of bringing about the reform in the system of criminal justice. 7. The corollary is the lack of confidence in the criminal justice system and the consequent mushroom growth of kattapanchayats. It is painful to notice that the said kattapanchayatdars would proclaim proudly that these panchayats alone would control the crimes, as criminal justice system, monitored by the Governments, State and Central, is a total failure. This is nothing but a monstrous claim, made by the kattapanchayatdars, who take law into their own hands, challenging the law enforcing agencies. 8. One of the classic examples is the present case, which is, popularly called as Kattapanchayat case, wherein unfortunate victim Suganthi, an Officer in the Telecom Department had to prostrate before katta panchayatdars, hoping that the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- be reduced for each prostration from 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. on 03.08.2003. It is quite shocking to see that this inhuman incident took place in open maidan under a tree, in the presence of all the villagers, consisting of old and young and men and women, despite the existence of laws, police agencies, prison and the Courts. The preposterous explanation given by the kattapanchayatdars for the questions put by this Court, with reference to the nature of their authority for doing such an act, is their lack of knowledge about the existing provisions of laws, prohibiting the same. In short, their defence is ignorance of law. All the panchayatdars are grown up persons in the village. One of those persons is V.A.O.; another one is a Teacher and all other persons have finished their school education. 9. Let us now come to the facts in brief, to get a clear picture of this case : (a) Krishnammal, a resident of Valayapatti village, is working as a Headmistress in an Elementary School, situated near the village. Her husband died one year ago. Her daughter Suganthi was studying B.Sc. During her studies, she got appointment in the Department of Telecommunication as a Telephone Office Assistant at Trichy. She discontinued her studies and joined the service. In the year 1991, one Rajendran, an engineering graduate married her. The said Rajendran was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Neyveli at that time. At the time of marriage, her widowed mother gave 25 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.50,000/- cash, apart from the household articles. Soon after the marriage, the in-laws demanded more money. Her mother was unable to give the said money, as demanded. (b) Two years later, Suganthi delivered a male child, i.e., on 28.08 .1993. Then, the second male child was born on 25.07.1995. She got transferred from Trichy to Cuddalore. Since her husband was staying at Neyveli, she used to go to Cuddalore by bus and come back to Neyveli in the evening. The entire salary was given to her husband. Even then, her husband and her in-laws did not take care of her and the two children already born. She was treated very badly. So, she went to the extent of stopping from attending her office and stayed at Neyveli itself. Even then, the cruelty continued. (c) Unable to bear the torture, in the year 1997, she left the matrimonial home along with the children; shifted to Cuddalore and began to attend the office at Cuddalore. Only on some occasions, husband Rajendran used to come to the house at Cuddalore and stay with them. Even then, Rajendran used to torture her all the times and threatened her that he would take away the children. (d) In January 1999, she gave a complaint to All Women Police Station, Cuddalore, about the torture by her husband. The Police officials called him and warned him, not to abuse the wife and children and not to separate children from her custody. (e) In March 1999, she got transferred from Cuddalore to Chennai and joined as a Senior Telecom Office Assistant in the C.G.M.Office, Tamil Nadu Circle. From 1999, neither her husband nor her in-laws visited her house and saw her children. He did not render any help for the well-being of the children. Having felt disgusted, in March, 2002, she sent a lawyer notice to her husband, requesting his consent for divorce. There was no reply from him. Again, after three months, she sent another notice. Even for this, there was no reply. Her mother was living alone in the village Valayapatti. (f) On 20.7.2003, she received a telephone call from her mother Krishnammal, stating that the Panchayatdars are convening a panchayat at the instance of her husband and they asked both the mother and daughter to appear before them on 03.08.2003, failing which her mother and herself will be ex-communicated from the village. Therefore, after applying for leave, leaving her children in her neighbour's house, she left Chennai and went to the village on 03.08.2003. She along with her mother Krishnammal appeared before the Panchayatdars. (g) Mr.Rajasekar, 6th petitioner was presiding over the panchayat. The other Panchayatdars, the petitioners 7 to 12, her husband Rajendran, lst petitioner, mother-in-law Madhiyazhagi, 2nd petitioner, brothers-in-law Kumar and Udhayakumar, petitioners 3 and 4 and relative Dharapathi, 5th petitioner, were also present. (h) During the panchayat, the Panchayatdars asked Suganthi why she sent legal notice to her husband for divorce. She explained the position. The Panchayatdars were not satisfied with the explanation. Ultimately, the Panchayatdars gave their verdict, directing Suganthi that she must live with her husband. When she expressed her inability to join her husband, the Panchayatdars, alternatively, directed her to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine, for not complying with their direction. When she said that she was not having that much of money, they said that she and her mother could prostrate before them as many times as they could and, for each prostration, the fine amount would be reduced proportionately. They also threatened both Suganthi and her mother that unless they do it, they will be ex-communicated and her mother, who is residing alone in the village, will not have any relationship with the other families in the village. Feeling apprehensive over the consequences, both of them agreed to prostrate before the Panchayatdars. Mother Krishnammal prostrated three times before the Panchayatdars. More than that, she, being an old lady, could not continue. Suganthi prostrated before the Panchayatdars from 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. Calculating the number of times she prostrated, the Panchayatdars reduced the fine and finalised the same at Rs.19,058.75. Suganthi was directed to pay the said amount on the same day, or else, Suganthi and her mother would be tied to the temple post. Finding no other way, Suganthi collected Rs.10,000/- from her relative Ramachandran and balance amount from one Anandan, her aunt's husband, and paid the amount of Rs.1 9,058.75 to the Panchayatdars on the same day. Even then, the Kattapanchayatdars gave a further verdict, directing Suganthi to come back to the village on 10.08.2003, along with her two children, to produce before them, in order to hand over the custody of the children to her husband. (i) Having suffered mentally and physically at the hands of mighty people, she came to Trichy, met the Superintendent of Police and presented the complaint. The same was registered in Crime No.7/2000 of All Women Police Sation, Musiri Taluk for the offences under Sections 49 8-A, 342, 384, 385, 406, 506(i) and 149 I.P.C. against 12 persons. (j) The petitioners 1 to 5 are the husband, the mother-in-law and the brothers-in-law of Suganthi respectively and the petitioners 6 to 1 2 are the Kattapanchayatdars . Out of these petitioners, 8th petitioner Jayapal was working as the V.A.O. and 9th petitioner Tamizhselvam was working as a Teacher in a school. (k) On coming to know of the complaint registered against them, the Panchayatdars made a written representation dated 24.8.2003 to the Collector, Trichy, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, stating that no such panchayat was convened on 03.08.2003 and no fine was collected. However, on the direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Musiri Taluk, took up investigation and made efforts to arrest the petitioners 1 to 12. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, all the petitioners have filed this application in Crl.O.P.No.28886 of 2003 before this Court for anticipatory bail, in respect of the case in the above crime number, registered on the complaint of Suganthi. That is how, the matter has come up before t his Court. 10. When the matter came up before this Court on 29.08.2003, this Court, on considering the seriousness of the allegations, directed the police to produce Case Diary and both the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant were asked to appear before this Court, to make a further enquiry. Accordingly, the Case Diary was produced and the de facto complainant and her mother as well as the petitioners were present before this Court. 11. Miss P.T.Asha, learned counsel for the petitioners, though would initially submit that the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, since the complaint given by Suganthi is a motivated one, ultimately, would admit on the instructions given by the petitioners that panchayat was held, in order to ensure unity between the husband and wife and that when there is no unity, as agreed by the de-facto complainant, petitioners 1 to 5, namely, husband, mother-inlaw, brothers-in-law and a relative obtained some amount from Suganthi towards the final settlement of the matter. On the basis of that, the amount was collected from Suganthi. The counsel would also submit that the petitioners are prepared to return the said amount to the de facto complainant. 12. When this Court made a further enquiry with the counsel and the parties, they made a statement that the acts of the Kattapanchayatdars and the collection of the fine amount, all were committed by them unknowingly and this practice of panchayat; prostration before the Panchayatdars is a regular practice; their act was bona fide and they are prepared to file affidavits, tendering apology, as they did not know that it is unlawful. Accordingly, time was granted for filing necessary affidavits. All the petitioners, on the next adjourned date, filed separate affidavits, expressing regret over the past incident and tendering unconditional apology to the court as well as to the defacto complainant Suganthi. It is specifically stated in their affidavits that the fine amount was collected as compensation only on private mediation. On the same day, the amount of Rs.19.058.75 was given back to Suganthi in the Court Hall itself. Besides tendering unconditional apology to Suganthi through separate affidavits, each of the Panchayatdars tendered their oral apology to Suganthi and asked for pardon. However, on that day, the mother Krishnammal, who was present before the Court, represented that the threatening incident still continues. Therefore, the matter was adjourned, in order to ensure peace among the parties. 13. On coming to know about the pendency of the enquiry before this Court over the unruly act of Kattapanchayatdars through the paper publication, the public, at large, sent several letters from all over Tamil Nadu to this Court, complaining about the similar incidents, harassing the victims by the Kattapanchayatdars in various areas and requesting intervention of this Court for giving directions to the Government to pass an Ordinance, prohibiting Kattapanchayats and making Kattapanchayat, a cognizable offence. Since this Court was flooded with similar letters,depicting various sad instances, wherein the victims have suffered heavily at the hands of Kattapanchayatdars in various centres all over Tamil Nadu, this Court thought it fit to direct Advocate General, to assist the Court, in deciding the issue. Accordingly, the Advocate General appeared before this Court. He was asked to clarify about the power of this Court, to give suggestions or directions to the Government, to issue an Ordinance on this aspect. The Advocate General fairly submitted that he would immediately write to the Government regarding the same and get the view of the Government with reference to the said issue. Since hundreds and hundreds of letters have been received by this Court, quoting similar incidents being taken place in all the areas of Tamil Nadu, this Court felt that it would be appropriate to appoint an Amicus Curiae, to assist this Court, to take suitable action with reference to the grievances made by the victims in those letters and accordingly, Miss R.Vaigai was appointed as Amicus Curiae. The matter was adjourned, to enable Miss.Vaigai and the learned Advocate General, to collect other particulars to enable this Court to pass final orders in the matter. 14. In the meantime, it was brought to the notice of this Court that a press interview was published in Junior Vikatan dated 08.10.2003 , where (i)K.R.Ramasamy, M.L.A.of Thiruvadanai Constituency, (ii) Periyakaruppan of Iravucheri, Devakottai Taluk of Sivaganga District and (iii)Tamilarasan of Dharmarajapuram Village, Madurai District, gave a Press interview, opposing the move of this Court to prohibit Kattapanchayat system and criticising the functioning of this Court. Since this Court felt that giving such a statement to the Press, justifying the activities of the Kattapanchayats, thereby criticising the view of this Court, would amount to interference with the administration of justice, this Court thought it fit to get clarification from them, with regard to their statements before taking contempt action against them. Therefore, this Court directed the District Judges of Sivaganga and Madurai, to summon these three persons to the respective Courts and obtain their statements, giving clarification, with reference to their statement made in the interview, given to Press, and send the reports along with their statements, recorded by them. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Kattapanchayat is being held in every village and the villagers are compelled to prostrate before them and made to pay fine and, by way of punishment, they are being ex-communicated, without knowing that those acts are prohibited under law. This submission has been endorsed by the other counsel as well. 16. Since this Court felt that there is lack of awareness among the public regarding the existence of the laws, prohibiting compulsory Kattapanchayat and giving punishments like imposing fine, excommunication etc., it thought it fit to issue a direction to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, so that suitable instructions could be given to the Legal Aid Committee under the Legal Services Authority of the respective Districts to make a propaganda in the Districts that convening Kattapanchayat is illegal and people should not be susceptible for the Kattapanchayats and if any person is aggrieved over that, he can approach Lok Adalats as well as the Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, Mr.Akbar Ali, Member Secretary was summoned and those directions were given. On the next hearing date, the Member Secretary would submit that steps have been taken, by giving suitable instructions to all the Legal Services Authorities of the Districts, to create awareness among the people to approach Taluk Legal Authorities in respect of the grievances, instead of approaching the Kattapanchayatdars. 17. Since both the parties agreed to take up the issue between the husband and wife before the Legal Servives Authority for conciliation regarding the matrimonial dispute and to solve the same between the parties, the Member Secretary was directed to summon both the husband and wife to get the matrimonial dispute solved. 18. As per the direction of this Court, the conciliation proceedings were held between the parties on 22.12.2003. The terms of compromise have been entered and accordingly, they have come to some terms and the said terms of compromise entered into between the wife and the husband have been filed. According to the terms of compromise dated 23 .12.2003, both agreed to get divorce by mutual consent and father agreed the children to be in the custody of the mother and father would pay monthly maintenance to the children and he would also agree for the other benefits to be given to the children. 19. In the meantime, the Advocate General filed an affidavit, sworn to by the Secretary to the Government, Public Department, along with the Annexure, containing the steps taken by the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, to prohibit Kattapanchayats. As per the affidavit, the Chief Secretary also sent a separate letter to all the Departments, stating that the Government Servants should not be allowed to involve themselves in Kattapanchayats and, in pursuance of the same, the Director General of Police also sent letters to the subordinate officers to take effective action against the Kattapanchayatdars, by registering an F.I.R. As per the affidavit of the Government dated 08.12.2003, a letter has been sent by the Government to the Director General of Police, directing him to give suitable directions to the authorities concerned to take action against Kattapanchayatdars, by registering an FIR and in pursuance of the same, the Director General of Police also sent letters to the subordinate officers to take effective action against the Kattapanchayatdars, by registering an FIR. The Advocate General also would submit that besides the steps so far taken, the Government is ready to adhere to the other suggestions that can be given by this Court. 20. Miss Vaigai, Amicus Curiae, would submit that though in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Secretary of the Public Department and the Director General of Police took effective steps trying to curb the illegality of Kattapanchayats, it should be ensured that the officers of the Police Department and Local Administration from the Panchayat to the District level should be sensitized about the illegality of Kattapanchayats. It is true that there are existing provisions in I.P.C. to take action against Kattapanchayats. But, it must be sensitized about the existing provisions in SC & ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and T.N. Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. There must be declaration by the Government that excommunication would amount to violation of human rights guaranteed under Articles 21, 23 and 25. Since both the perpetrators and victims are ignorant of laws regarding Kattapanchayats, there must be publicity to be given to make people aware about their rights as well as the consequences of violations. The State Government can also be directed to provide assistance and facilities to the State Women's Commission, State Office of the National Commission for SC/ST, Chennai and Human Rights Commission. There can also be direction to evolve procedure for investigation of offences arising out of Kattapanchayats to be handled speedily and with protection to victims. 21. I have heard the counsel for the parties, the Advocate General and Miss Vaigai, Amicus Curiae and carefully considered the submissions. 22. The issue in this petition raised by the petitioners would relate to the grant of anticipatory bail. While considering the issue, this Court has to take up the other issue, which has become the main issue, with reference to the mushroom growth of Kattapanchayats, which are prevalent all over Tamil Nadu, posing a challenge to the law enforcing agencies. 23. When this Court has gone through the letters received from the public, nearing 1000 in number, would feel shocked that police agency is helpless and keeping quiet and the Kattapanchayatdars reign raised its ugly heads, controlling the entire area, as if they are the monarchs of the area, threatening even the educated people, who suffered at the hands of the so called Kattapanchayatdars, who were compelled not to go either to the police station or to the Court. It is clear from those letters that the law enforcing agencies, even though there are some provisions to indicate that the Kattapanchayat's imposition of fine and ex-communication are the offences, never cared to take action against the Kattapanchayatdars. This may be so, because the law enforcing agencies also may not be aware of the existing provisions of law. 24. In this context, on seeing this pitiable factual situation, prevailing all over Tamil Nadu, this Court has to necessarily take up the issue relating to the suggestion or direction to be given to the Government, with regard to the steps to be taken by them to eradicate the evil of Kattapanchayats, either by issuing an Ordinance or by giving suitable directions, implementing the existing provisions of law. 25. Let us, at the outset, see the affidavit filed by Mr.Pitchandi, the Secretary, Public Department, who has sworn to an affidavit giving the details of the steps taken by the Government, in pursuance of the suggestions made to the Advocate General during the pendency of the application. 26. According to the Secretary to Government, Public Department, the matter, relating to the Ordinance to be issued to curb the obnoxious practice of imposing punishments by Kattapanchayatdars, was considered by the Government. After consideration, the Government desires to implement the existing provisions effectively, by giving suitable directions to the officials concerned. In response to the suggestion made to the Government through the Advocate General, the Government sent a letter to the Director General of Police on 25.11.2003, directing him to give suitable instructions to the authorities concerned to the effect that whenever persons affected by the punishments imposed by the local Panchayatdars prefer complaints, immediate action should be