Introduction
In a case that lays bare not just legal questions but also the daily indignities faced by Dalit communities, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently passed a powerful order in Thirumalaisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. The case concerned a man convicted for caste-based abuse under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but it led to a larger discussion: access to drinking water and the quiet persistence of caste discrimination in rural India.
The Case: Abuse in the Fields, Conviction in Court
The petitioner, Thirumalaisamy, was convicted under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act for intentionally insulting a Dalit woman with caste-based slurs, allegedly during an altercation on her agricultural land in 2016. He was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment by the Tenkasi Sessions Court.
While he was acquitted under other charges, including Section 506(i) IPC (criminal intimidation) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, his conviction under the SC/ST Act remained, prompting him to appeal and seek a suspension of sentence.
Justice R.N. Manjula granted the suspension on conditions, acknowledging procedural and interpretational issues in how the trial court had handled the "public view" requirement under Section 3(1)(r). But the legal analysis did not end there.
The Bigger Picture: A Tap, a Queue, and a Caste Wall
What set this order apart was the Court's response to a statement made by the victim herself, an elderly woman, who described how Dalit households in her village had to wait until members of dominant castes finished collecting water from the public tap. The tap, she said, was situated on a street dominated by other communities. Even access to water, a basic human necessity, remained entangled in the caste hierarchy.
In a forceful observation, Justice Manjula remarked:
"Natural resources like water is common to all... Is not the human race one community? ... The entitlement to get uncontaminated good water is a visage of right to life."
She further stated that democracy guarantees the rule of law, not the rule of the mighty, and emphasized that symbolic gestures from authorities are not enough, what's needed is "practical solution and noiseless action."
Directions to the District Administration
In a rare and commendable move, the Court went beyond the narrow confines of the case to issue specific directions to the District Collector of Tenkasi to take immediate steps to ensure that such caste-based discrimination shall be prevented in Thalaivankonttai village. The Court also directed the District Collector of Tenkasi to ensure that there is installation of adequate public water taps with equitable access for all communities and make it explicitly clear that no single community can claim exclusive control over any public tap. A compliance report has been ordered by 31 July 2025.
Statutory Compliance
| Provisions | Key Principles |
| Section 3(1)(r) – SC/ST Act | Punishes non-SC/ST persons who intentionally insult or
humiliate an SC/ST person in public view. Max punishment: 5 years + fine. |
| Section 3(1)(s) – SC/ST Act, 1989 | Targets verbal abuse using caste names against SC/ST persons in
public. Max punishment: 5 years + fine. |
| Section 3(2)(va) – SC/ST Act, 1989 | Adds stricter punishment if any IPC offence is committed against an SC/ST person due to their caste identity. Acts as an aggravating clause. |
| ection 506(i) – IPC | Covers basic criminal intimidation, i.e., threatening someone
to cause fear or stop them from doing something lawful. Punishment: Up to 2 years, or fine, or both. |
| Section 4 – TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 | Punishes harassment of women, including verbal abuse, stalking,
or causing mental distress. Punishment: Up to 3 years + fine. |
Legal, Constitutional, and Social Significance
This case is a textbook example of how intersectional issues, caste, gender, access to resources, and legal rights, collide in everyday life. The Court's response aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution, recognizing the right to clean water as integral to the right to life. It also reflects the judiciary's expanding role in tackling social injustice beyond narrow procedural confines.
Moreover, it affirms that caste discrimination is not just about slurs or violence, it is also about quiet denials, like being made to wait for water.
Conclusion
The order in Thirumalaisamy isn't just about bail, it's a call to action. A reminder that the law's true test lies in its ability to uplift the most marginalised, not merely punish the powerful. By blending accountability with compassion, the judgment underscores the role of courts not only as arbiters of law, but as defenders of dignity.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
