When Justice Meets Sustainability: The Case of human rights violations and its redressal in the Vachathi Community

The Vachathi case, a brutal incident of state violence against a marginalized tribal community in Tamil Nadu, India, exemplifies the intersectionality of caste, gender, and state power. On June 20, 1992, police and forest officials conducted a raid under the pretext of curbing sandalwood smuggling, leading to widespread violence, sexual assault, and destruction of property. This case highlights the systemic issues of caste/class-based discrimination and gender violence, reflecting broader socio-political dynamics. The delay in justice and initial lack of accountability underscores significant flaws within India's legal and criminal justice system. Analysing the Vachathi incident through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)- specifically SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)- provides insights into addressing the root causes of such violence and inequality. This analysis calls for intersectional legal frameworks, holistic support systems, inclusive development policies, and stronger accountability mechanisms. The Vachathi case underscores the importance of comprehensive strategies to protect the rights of marginalized forest-dependent communities and build a more just and equitable society.

Introduction

The Vachathi case is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by marginalized communities in India and around the world. The systemic issues that perpetuate violence and inequality can be understood by examining this incident through the lens of the SDGs. Achieving the goals of peace, security, and strong institutions requires a concerted effort from all sectors of society. It demands robust legal frameworks, inclusive development policies, and accountable institutions that uphold the principles of justice and human rights.

The Vachathi case represents one of the most egregious incidents of state violence against a marginalized community in India's recent history. On June 20, 1992, the village of Vachathi in Tamil Nadu was subjected to a brutal raid by police and forest officials. This operation, allegedly aimed at curbing sandalwood smuggling, quickly devolved into widespread violence, sexual assault, and destruction of property. The victims, primarily members of the indigenous tribal community, faced severe human rights violations, highlighting systemic issues of caste-based discrimination and gender violence.

Context and Background

The Vachathi raid was conducted under the pretext of cracking down on illegal activities related to sandalwood smuggling. However, a gross misuse of power by law enforcement agencies unfolded. During the operation, officials ransacked homes, destroyed property, and assaulted villagers, including women and children. Numerous women were subjected to sexual violence, an act that underscores the gendered nature of the attack. The aftermath saw little immediate justice for the victims, with legal proceedings dragging on for nearly two decades before culminating in convictions in 2011.

The delay in justice and the initial lack of accountability point to significant flaws within India's criminal justice system. This case is not merely an isolated incident but a reflection of the broader socio-political environment in which marginalized communities often find themselves at the receiving end of institutional violence. The Vachathi incident thus provides a critical lens through which to examine the intersectionality of caste, class, gender, and state power.

The Intersectionality of Caste, Gender, and State Power

The Vachathi case is a powerful illustration of the intersectionality of caste, gender, and state power, revealing how multiple axes of discrimination can compound to worsen the vulnerability and suffering of marginalized communities. Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, refers to how different forms of oppression, such as those based on caste, gender, and class, intersect and interact to produce unique experiences of discrimination and disadvantage. In the context of Vachathi, the intersecting identities of caste and gender significantly shaped the nature and impact of the violence inflicted by the state.

The Vachathi case is a stark reminder of the pervasive and compounded nature of intersectional oppression. The intersecting axes of caste, gender, and state power created a context where the tribal women of Vachathi faced extreme violence and prolonged injustice. Addressing such intersectional issues requires a multifaceted approach that simultaneously recognizes and tackles multiple forms of discrimination.

Caste-based Discrimination and Marginalization

Caste is one of the most pervasive and persistent forms of social stratification in India. The Vachathi villagers, belonging to the indigenous tribal community, were victims of deeply entrenched caste-based discrimination. The tribal communities in India, often referred to as Adivasis, have historically been marginalized and excluded from mainstream socio-economic and political life. This systemic exclusion has left them vulnerable to exploitation, poverty, and violence.

In Vachathi, the raid by forest and police officials was allegedly conducted to curb sandalwood smuggling. However, the manner in which the operation was carried out points to the underlying asymmetric power equations governing the attitudes of State institutions towards the tribal community. The raid was characterized by the destruction of property, looting, physical and sexual assault, which are tactics often employed to intimidate and subjugate marginalized groups.

Gender-Based Violence and Patriarchy

Gender played a critical role in the Va-chathi incident, with women being spe-cifically targeted for sexual violence. The intersection of caste and gender meant that tribal women faced a double bur-den of discrimination and violence. Sex-ual violence against women, especially from marginalized communities, is a tac-tic of domination and control. It serves to reinforce patriarchal norms and hier-archies, while also humiliating and sub-jugating the entire community.

In the Vachathi case, the sexual violence perpetrated against the women was not incidental but a deliberate act to terror-ize and assert dominance. The women who were raped during the raid suffered immense trauma and stigma, which was further compounded by the prolonged legal battle for justice. The delay in prosecuting the perpetrators and the ini-tial lack of institutional support highlight the systemic failures in addressing gender-based violence, particularly when the victims belong to marginalized communities.

State Power and Impunity

The role of state power in the Vachathi case is crucial for understanding the dynamics of intersectional oppression. The raid was led by the forest officials, assisted by the police and revenue department personnel—who are supposed to uphold the law and protect citizens. However, in Vachathi, these officials became the perpetrators of violence, abusing their power with impunity. This misuse of state power is a common feature in cases involving marginalized communities, where there is often little accountability for actions taken against those deemed socially and econom-ically insignificant.

The delayed justice in the Vachathi case, with convictions only occurring after nearly two decades, underscores the impunity often enjoyed by state actors. The judicial process took time and was fraught with challenges for the victims of Vachathi. The initial inaction and subsequent delays in delivering justice reveal a lack of institutional commitment to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable and holding perpetrators accountable.

Intersectional Analysis and Implications

Analysing the Vachathi case through the lens of intersectionality provides a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of oppression and the need for comprehensive approaches to justice and equality. The intersecting identities of caste and gender in Vachathi created a unique context of vulnerability, where the tribal women were subjected to extreme forms of violence by the state. 

1) Intersectional Legal Frameworks: There is a need for legal frameworks that recognize and address the intersectional nature of discrimination. Laws and policies should be designed to protect individuals from multiple forms of oppression simultaneously. This includes stringent measures against caste-based violence, gender-based violence, and abuses of state power. Ensuring that legal provisions are sensitive to the intersecting identities of victims can help in delivering more effective and comprehensive justice.

2) Holistic Support Systems: Survivors of intersectional violence require holistic support systems that address their diverse needs. This includes legal aid, psychological counseling, healthcare, and social support. For the women of Vachathi, the trauma of sexual violence was compounded by societal stigma and the prolonged struggle for justice. Support systems need to be culturally sensitive and inclusive, providing comprehensive care that considers the survivors’ intersecting identities.

3) Inclusive Development Policies: Policies aimed at reducing inequality must be inclusive and targeted towards marginalized communities. In the case of tribal communities, this means ensuring equitable access to resources, education, and economic opportunities. Development policies should aim to empower these communities, reducing their vulnerability to exploitation and violence. Addressing the root causes of marginalization is essential for preventing future incidents like Vachathi.

4) Accountability and Institutional Reform: Strengthening accountability mechanisms within state institutions is crucial for preventing abuses of power. This includes rigorous training for law enforcement personnel on human rights and sensitivity towards marginalized communities. Judicial reforms are also necessary to ensure swift and fair legal processes. The Vachathi case highlighted the need for robust mechanisms to hold state actors accountable and deliver timely justice.

5) Community Empowerment and Advocacy: Empowering marginalized communities through education, awareness, and advocacy is essential for combating intersectional oppression. Community-led initiatives and grassroots organizations can play a significant role in advocating for the rights of marginalized groups and holding institutions accountable. Empowered communities are better equipped to resist exploitation and demand justice.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, provide a comprehensive framework for addressing global challenges such as poverty, inequality, and injustice. Among the 17 goals, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) is particularly pertinent when analysing the Vachathi case. This goal emphasizes the importance of eradicating violence and fostering inclusive, accountable institutions.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

SDG 16 emphasizes the need for peaceful, just, and inclusive societies. It advocates for the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The Vachathi incident exposed significant deficiencies in these areas. The initial lack of accountability and the prolonged delay in delivering justice point to weaknesses within the law enforce-ment and judicial systems.

To achieve SDG 16, it is imperative to strengthen institutional frameworks to ensure they operate without bias and corruption. This includes enhanc-ing the training and accountability of law enforcement agencies, ensuring prompt and fair judicial processes, and fostering a culture of respect for human rights. The Vachathi case underscores the necessity of such reforms to build trust in public insti-tutions and ensure justice for all citizens.

 A recap of the Case

Timeline of the case in brief

• July 21, 1992- First official response by the government through the then Minister of Forest K.A. Sengottaiyan defends the raid, states it was against smuggling, and says the accusations are fabricated.

• August 3, 1992, representation from the All-India Democratic Women’s Association, Madras (now Chennai), received in the office of Director, SC/ST, Chennai.

• August 6- 8, 1992- Inter alia, based on print media reports, B. Bhamathi, Director of the National Commission for SC/ ST undertakes a visit to Vachathi and communicates to the National Commission of SC/ST Commission establishing a prima facie case of human rights violations.

• January, 1993- Petition filed before the Madras HC seeking transfer of the case to CBI for investigation.

• January, 1993- The Madras High Court appoints a one-person Commission of Inquiry (B. Bhamathi) to submit a status report.

• February 24, 1995- Court orders transfer of the case to CBI, CBI arrests all 269 accused and registers cases under IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

• January, 2006- Case transferred to Krishnagiri Court.

• April 23, 2006- CBI chargesheet filed in Coimbatore.

• February 17, 2008- Case transferred to Dharmapuri Sessions Court, charges against 54 abate as they are dead.

• September 29, 2011- Court finds 215 people guilty of charges, court sentences the convicts to imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years; 7 accused convicted of rape; convicts were given time to appeal.

• September 29, 2023- Madras HC confirms conviction; orders 10 lakh compensation to 18 rape survivors along with a government job; orders stringent punishment for then Collector and Superintendent of Police.

• October, 2023: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by two Indian Forest Department Officials.

The Tamil Nadu Tribals Association raised the issue of the Vachathi raid across various platforms to prompt criminal proceedings. However, the state initially refused to even file a First Information Report. Fact-finding teams from democratic and left-leaning organizations, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), visited the village and substantiated the allegations. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties, a human rights organization, also investigated and confirmed the allegations. The issue gained media attention. The Association took legal action to release the imprisoned victims and subsequently approached the Madras High Court to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The single bench at the High Court initially dismissed the case, doubting that educated government officials could commit such atrocities. The Association then appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed the High Court to take cognizance. Various organizations assisted the Vachathi people in sustaining their livelihoods.

Ms. Bhamathi, the then Director of the National Commission for SC/ST, apart from reading about the incidents in the newspaper, in July 1992, when the issue first came into public glare, was also approached by the representation of civil society organization, All India Democratic Women’s Association. Keeping the National Commission briefed and under suo-motu powers vested with the Commission under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ms. Bhamathi visited Vachathi, conducted an inquiry and filed a report to the National Commission revealing the forest officials’ misconduct against the tribals. Ms. Bhamathi also recommended monetary compensation for the victims of the mindless human rights violations, apart from the victims of sexual assault. Later, in early 1993, the Madras High Court appointed Ms. Bhamathi as a one-person commission of inquiry, and post the inquiry, Ms. Bhamathi submitted a commission of inquiry report, which the Court accepted Lock, Stock, and Barrel.

Relying and extracting large volumes of the observations and findings of my report on behalf of the Commission, the Court, in particular, reinforced observations in the report regarding the organised nature of the crime driven by the andalwood mafia acting with impunity not outfaced by the law enforcement machinery. The court stated that

The report exposed the nexus between certain personnel of the Forest Department and the smugglers. Pointing out that Vachathi, owing to its strategic location, had been the starting point for transportation of sandalwood procured illegally from the Sitheri hill range, the report said, “It appears some of the field staff of the Forest Department were hand in glove with notorious smugglers and their agents in Vachathi and nearby villages. The investigation has revealed that there was a chit/token system in vogue to ensure the smooth operation of illegal felling, transportation, concealment in riverbeds, patta lands, and nallahs for some time, before loading and ferrying the sandalwood to final destinations.” It added: “Going by the living standards and the economic status of the tribals of Vachathi village, it does not seem that they are the main smugglers themselves. Official records and discreet information collected during the investigation revealed that the villagers are doing only insignificant peripheral jobs….

There was also some discontentment in the matter of sharing of spoils by some of the corrupt elements in the [Forest] Department.”

In 1995, the High Court entrusted the investigation to the CBI. Despite the state government’s appeals against this order, both the division bench and the Supreme Court dismissed these appeals, revealing the lengths to which the state would go to defend the criminal acts of its officers.

Only after this did the authorities register an FIR, a basic step in criminal prosecution, regarding the atrocities. The CBI’s investigation further un-veiled the forest officials’ and police’s misconduct. Many accused officials, totalling 256, employed various de-lay tactics during the trial. During the test identification parade involving more than 1000 persons, the accused became unruly, leading the judicial officer to abort the process for the victims’ safety. The High Court intervened again, warning the state government to cooperate. The parade venue was changed to Salem Central Prison, con-ducted by a District Judge. Despite being attacked while attending the parade, the victims, including rape survi-vors, identified their aggressors.

After a protracted trial, on September 29, 2011, 215 of the accused (out of the original 256, with 54 having died during the trial) were convicted and sentenced to jail terms ranging from one to 17 years by a special court. Among the convicted, 126 were from the forest department, including four Indian Forest Service officers, 84 from the police department, and five from the revenue department. Following the judgment, the High Court was again approached and issued a directive to pay compensation as per statute. Out of the approximately three crore rupees awarded, over 80% of the amount was eventually paid to the victims.

The Madras High Court on September 29, 2023, upheld the convictions and sentences handed down by a trial court in 2011 to officials from the Forest, Police, and Revenue Departments for their involvement in atrocities committed against residents of the Vachathi tribal village in Dharmapuri district in 1992. The Court affirmed the verdict of the trial court, which included rigorous imprisonment ranging from one to seven years for the convicted officials, including Indian Forest Service (IFS) personnel who had conducted a raid in search of smuggled sandalwood.

The Court also issued strong directives for punitive action against the then Dharmapuri Collector, Superintendent of Police, and District Forest Officer, holding them accountable for failing to protect the villagers. He requested a com-pliance report from the government detailing measures taken to improve the livelihoods and living standards of the affected villagers.

The case originally involved 269 accused individuals, including senior officials like the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Conservators of Forests, and District Forest Officer. Due to the lengthy legal process, 54 accused persons passed away before the completion of the trial, leading to the abatement of charges against them. In 2011, the trial court convicted the remaining 215 accused, including Harikrishnan and four other IFS officials, on charges in-cluding house ransacking, indiscriminate assault, rape, illegal detention, property destruction, and livestock slaughter.

Taking a cue from the report of the Commission, while the trial court had initially ordered compensation of ₹15,000 each to 18 women who were victims of rape during the raid. However, the High Court directed the State government to pay ₹10 lakh each to the victims, with the option to recover 50% of this amount from those convicted of rape. It further mandated the government to secure the livelihoods of the victims, either through government employment or by creating self-employment opportunities.

Author’s first-hand experience

On August 3, 1992, I received a concerning representation from the All-India Democratic Women’s Association, Madras (now Chennai), in my capacity as Director, Scheduled Castes & Tribes, Chennai. The representation alleged that officials from the Forest, Revenue, and Police Departments had raided Vachathi village, Harur taluk, Dharmapuri district, on June 20, 1992. During the raid, they reportedly destroyed houses belonging to Scheduled Tribe villagers, damaged and looted property, and committed a heinous act of sexual violence against 18 tribal women. A press report from the Indian Express, Coimbatore Edition, dated July 25, 1992, was also included with the representation.

Given the severity of these allegations and my role as Director of the National Commission of SC/ST Commission, the apex statutory body safeguarding the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry, I decided to conduct an on-the-spot inquiry on my suo-motu initiative. This inquiry took place from August 6 to 8, 1992. I personally visited Vachathi vil-lage and spent a significant amount of time speaking with the victims, villagers, police officials, revenue department personnel, and forest officials to gather a comprehensive understanding of the incident.

The reserve forests in the Chitheri Hills are abundant in san-dalwood. Reports from forest officials indicated extensive illegal felling and theft of sandalwood in this area. Conse-quently, a raid was planned onVachathi village for June 20, 1992. A squad of 45 forest protection staff was dispatched to comb the adjacent Thombakkal reserve forest on June 19, 1992. On the following day, police, revenue officials, and forest officials assembled at Harur to conduct the raid later that day. During the operation, the forest protection squad claimed to apprehend seven sandalwood smugglers. Upon interrogation, they learned about hidden sandalwood near Vachathi village. As they attempted to recover the con-cealed sandalwood, they were reportedly attacked by 300 Vachathi villagers, resulting in serious injury to one forest official. It was further alleged that the officials were held captive and beaten by the villagers, including women, for over three hours.

In response, a larger raiding party comprising 150 forest staff led by District Forest Officers, 80 police officials (including women constables) headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police from Harur, and seven revenue officials led by a Tehsildar, raided Vachathi village in the afternoon. The forest officials reportedly recovered around 55 tonnes of sandalwood from various locations in the village, valued at approximately Rs. 1.5 crores. On June 20, 1992, the raiding party detained 90 women, 15 men, and 28 children, taking them to Harur for questioning. A country gun was also reportedly recovered during the operation. Several cases were filed under the Forest Act, resulting in the arrest of 576 individuals, including 51 from Vachathi village.

The villagers reported that following the raid by forest, police, and revenue officials, women and young girls were beaten, assaulted, and raped. Some women claimed they were stripped and forced to beat their village chief, known as “Oru Gounder,” with brooms. They were held at the Forest Rangers Office overnight, then transferred to the Subjail at Harur, and subsequently to the Salem Central Jail. Their homes were damaged, with floors smashed, door frames broken, and household items such as food grains, radios, tape recorders, and pump sets thrown into the well.

I visited the village, sat with the villagers, and interacted with them. I conducted a public hearing to allow everyone to speak freely and independently. I also discussed with officials and recorded statements from both villagers and officials.

Afterward, I verified in my report that certain members of the raiding party had extensively damaged property belonging to the villagers. Moreover, they unlawfully detained villagers, with only a few shown as formally arrested and remanded. Despite my report indicating that over a month and a half had passed since the raid was reported to the government, I recommended a thorough investigation to gather legal evidence of these violations for appropriate legal action against the perpetrators. Additionally, my report noted allegations that some villagers, due to their poor economic status, were being ex-ploited as conduits by smugglers or masterminds, suggesting organized criminal activity in sandal-wood smuggling. I advocated for holding accountable those master operators involved in illegal trade, emphasizing that the villagers were unwitting pawns in this illicit trade. Furthermore, I recommend-ed compensation for the loss of property and damages suffered by the victims, all of whom belonged to the tribal community.

Nearly six to seven months after these visits and reports, while watching the national news on Door Darshan one evening, I learned that the Honourable Madras High Court had appointed a one-person Commission of Inquiry. The court directed me to report on the village’s current conditions and the challenges faced by local villagers. This directive followed writ petitions filed by a Member of Parliament seeking an impartial inquiry. During open court proceedings, the High Court considered all relevant averments made by the petitioners and identified me as the suitable, independent, and competent person to undertake this task. Following the High Court’s orders, I revisited the village. This time, upon villagers’ request, I left behind my car, driver, accompanying state officials, and police security. I walked alone for approximately 300 to 400 meters into the village, where I was warmly welcomed by the villagers.

During this visit, I conducted a thorough and detailed inquiry, obtaining statements from all concerned parties, especially women, girls, and the elderly. I found no trust deficit, even as no official from any side of government, state, or centre had been allowed entry into the village post-pillage. I compiled a comprehensive report, addressing all allegations and updating, the court on positive actions taken by both the state and central governments as also the gaps, highlighting the actions further required to be done. The High Court reviewed the two fact-finding reports I submitted and agreed on the necessity for an impartial investigation to bring the offenders to justice and uphold the rights of those whose rights were violated.`

Consequently, the High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the case, citing extensively from my reports. This order, issued on February 24, 1995, prompted the CBI to complete its investigation and file charges against 269 government officials for various offenses, including rape. A special fast-track court was established to try the case. In 2004, despite having returned to my parent cadre and being posted as Additional Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna, I was called for cross-examination by the Special Court at Krishnagiri (fol-lowing the district’s split from Dharmapuri). Despite attempts by defence counsels to discredit me in court, I remained steadfast and factual, providing pivotal evidence that bolstered the case, as acknowledged by the CBI. I was perceived to be a crucial witness, covering multiple roles, all rolled in one, such as, a person representing a constitutional body, a central government representative, not being a part of the state government, a Senior IAS Officer, a woman officer and not belonging to any of the disputed community in question.

Finally, on September 29, 2011, after 19 years, the District & Sessions Court, a fast-track court established for this purpose, delivered its verdict, finding 215 of the accused guilty. Among them were 155 forest department officials, 109 police officials, and 5 from the Revenue Department, convicted of serious offenses such as rioting, criminal assault, rape, and illegal confinement against the villagers. Many faced departmental actions, which are still pending, including withheld pensions, and 54 of the accused had passed away by this time.

The Case of Command Liability

The Vachathi case serves as a stark reminder of the principles of command liability and the responsibilities of senior officials in preventing and addressing human rights violations. The legal outcomes of this case reinforce the notion that those in positions of power must be vigilant in overseeing their subordinates and ensuring adherence to the law. The Vachathi incident, where extensive atrocities were committed against the tribal villagers by forest, police, and revenue department officials, exemplifies the application of this principle within the Indian legal context. The judiciary’s role in Taffirming these principles is pivotal in promoting accountability and justice, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable populations.

The initial raid resulted in severe human rights violations, including assault, illegal detention, rape, and property destruction. The initial response from the state was inadequate, with delays in registering complaints and reluctance to act against the perpetrators, reflecting a systemic failure to address the crimes promptly and effectively. The involve-ment of high-ranking officials is significant. These officials were responsible for overseeing the raid and ensuring that it was conducted within the bounds of the law. The trial court’s findings highlighted that these leaders either directly participated in or failed to prevent the atrocities committed by their subordinates. This negligence, or wilful omission, constitutes a breach of their duty to protect the villagers and maintain lawful conduct among their ranks.

The legal journey culminated in the Madras High Court’s judgment on September 29, 2023, followed close on the heels by the SC Judgment upholding the conviction order. The court’s directive for compensation to the victims and the call for action against the then Dharmapuri Collector, Superintendent of Police, and District Forest Officer under-score the recognition of command liability. The judgment not only confirmed the guilt of the direct perpetrators but also held their superiors accountable for their failure to prevent the crimes or to punish those responsible. By impos-ing financial liability on the state to compensate the victims and authorizing the recovery of compensation from those convicted of rape, the court emphasized the importance of accountability at all levels of command.

The Vachathi case sets a crucial precedent for command liability in India. It highlights the responsibility of senior officials to ensure that their subordinates act within the legal framework and respect human rights. The case demon-strates that failure to exercise this responsibility can result in legal accountability for the actions of subordinates. Furthermore, the case underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing systemic failures and ensuring justice for victims of state-sponsored violence. The High Court’s decision to uphold the convictions and mandate compensation reflects a broader commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting vulnerable communities from abuse of power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judicial journey that began with the atrocities committed against the residents of Vachathi village in 1992 has finally reached its definitive milestone. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court in 2011, underscoring the accountability of officials from the Forest, Police, and Revenue Departments for their roles in the heinous acts perpetrated against the tribal community.

The High Court’s directive to provide substantial compensation of ₹10 lakh each to the victims, despite the inestimable and immeasurable damages, reflects a commitment to acknowledging and redressing the severe injustices endured by the affected individuals. Moreover, the court’s insistence on recovering a portion of this compensation from those convicted of rape underscores a measure of financial accountability and restitution.

The High Court’s strictures on the former Dharmapuri Collector, Superintendent of Police, and District Forest Officer for their failure to protect the villagers serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities entrusted to public officials in safeguarding vulnerable communities. The directive for stringent action against these officials underscores the imperative for administrative accountability and the protection of human rights.

Furthermore, the court’s call for the government to ensure the livelihoods of the victims through employment opportunities or self-employment initiatives demonstrates a commitment to restoring dignity and stability to those affected by the prolonged legal ordeal.

The efforts by the judiciary and civil society organizations exemplify the struggle for justice and accountability in the face of intersectional oppression involving caste, gender, and state power, as seen in the Vachathi case. The case underscores the need for robust legal frameworks (SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) to protect marginal-ized communities and ensure justice. The prolonged legal battle and delay tactics employed by the accused highlight the systemic barriers to achieving justice and the critical need for transparent, accountable institutions.

With this landmark and unprecedented judgment in the history of criminal jurisprudence, confirmation of convictions and sentences of all surviving accused numbering more than 200 in one go, and the directives for compensation, livelihood support, and administrative accountability, the Court has not only delivered justice but also set a precedent for holding accountable those responsible for egregious human rights violations. This case marks a nearer and more significant step towards closure and restitution for the residents of Vachathi village, affirming the judiciary’s role in upholding the rights and dignity of all citizens.

References

• Supreme Court of India. (2011). Vachathi Case Judgement.

• Human Rights Watch. (2012). *Broken People: Caste Violence Against India’s “Untouchables”*. Retrieved from [https://www.hrw. org] (https://www.hrw.org)

• National Human Rights Commission. (2012). Report on the Vachathi Incident.

• Supreme Court of India. (2011). Vachathi Case Judgement.

• United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from [https://sdgs.un.org/goals] (https://sdgs.un.org/goals)

• Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke University Press.

• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.

• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271-313). Macmillan Education.

• Sen, A. (2009). *The Idea of Justice*. Harvard University Press.

• National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights. (2006). Dalit Women Speak Out: Violence Against Dalit Women in India. New Delhi.

• Menon, N. (2004). Recovering Subversion: Feminist Politics Beyond the Law. University of Illinois Press.

• United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from [https://sdgs.un.org/goals] (https://sdgs.un.org/goals)

• National Human Rights Commission. (2012). Report on the Vachathi Incident.

• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/1992-vachathi-brutality-madras-high-court-confirms-conviction-sentence- imposed-on-forest-police-and-revenue-officials/article67360113.ece

• M.Perumal & Others vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2012 (4) MLJ (Crl) 705

• Bhamathi Balasurbamaniam is a former IAS officer of the 1979 Bihar Cadre, she has also served as Secretary to the Government of India

• Command liability is a legal doctrine holding superiors responsible for the actions of their subordinates when they knew or should have known about the criminal conduct.