G. Pushpamani, belonging to the Paliyar tribe living in the Western Ghats, and her two children heaved a sigh of relief on Friday as the Madras High Court directed the State government to pay them a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the custodial death of her husband in 1994.
Allowing a criminal original petition filed by the tribal woman before the principal seat of the High Court in Chennai in 1997, Justice G.M. Akbar Ali ordered to disburse the money within three months. The petition was transferred to the Madurai Bench pursuant to its establishment in July 2004.
Recalling the history of the case, the judge said the petitioner’s husband Ganesan was picked up by the forest officials on September 12, 1994 for interrogation into the death of an elephant in Velpathikadu, a dense forest around 15 km from Puliyangudi in Sivagiri taluk of Tirunelveli district.
A day after, he was found dead in a toilet on the premises of the Sankarankovil Range office of the Forest Department and the officials claimed it to be a suicide. The Tenkasi Revenue Divisional Officer, on enquiry, found it to be a case of custodial death and initiated criminal prosecution against the forest officials.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) too called for a report on the incident and asked the government on May 23, 1995 to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 from the Chief Minister’s Public Relief Fund without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to claim any other benefits. The amount was paid on July 11, 1995.
However, the woman approached the Legal Aid Board and filed the present petition seeking a balance of Rs. 1 lakh which she was entitled to under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. She also sought a direction to the Collector to provide food, clothing, shelter and other such things.
The government contended that she was not entitled to the compensation as the SC/ST Rules framed in 1995, a year after the death, cannot be applied retrospectively. Counsel also pointed out that the forest officials had been acquitted in the criminal case lodged against them.
Rejecting the contentions, the judge agreed with petitioner’s counsel P. Rathinam and T. Lajapathi Roy that she would be entitled to compensation under the SC/ST Rules as they were framed three months prior to the disbursement of the compensation given as per the directions of the NHRC.
“The petitioner has been knocking at the doors of the government and also approached this court by filing the petition in 1997 for fair compensation and for rehabilitation. More than 12 years have passed, yet the petitioner has not been answered. The subsequent acquittal of the offenders will not disentitle the victim from receiving just and reasonable compensation,” the judge said.
Stating that her plea to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical aid, transport facilities and other essential items as per the SC/ST Rules might not be necessary now due to the passage of nearly 15 years, the judge however directed the Collector to explore the possibility of rehabilitation if the petitioner or her children approached him.
