The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday summoned the Sivaganga Collector while hearing a petition filed by a woman from Kachanatham who lost her husband following the 2018 caste violence. Justice Battu Devanand summoned the Collector and posted the matter for hearing on April 21.
On May 28, 2018, a group of persons belonging to a dominant intermediate caste attacked Scheduled Caste villagers with deadly weapons. The assailants were enraged that the members of the Scheduled Caste had failed to present them the temple honours and were sitting cross-legged in their presence.
Three Scheduled Caste villagers: K. Arumugam, A. Shanmuganathan and V. Chandrasekhar were hacked to death. Dhanasekaran, a Scheduled Caste, sustained serious injuries in the attack and died of health complications about a year and half later.
The petitioner D. Sridevi, wife of Dhanasekaran, said she had two sons and a daughter to look after. She sought a direction to the authorities to provide employment to her youngest son D. Gokulakrishnan, as per the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by considering his educational qualification. She said that he had completed his ITI training and was involved in agricultural work.
She said that her eldest son also sustained injuries in the attack and following the incident he has become differently abled which is assessed at around 40%. She said that her husband was the only breadwinner and after losing him they were struggling to make ends meet.
The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Sivaganga sentenced 27 accused in the case to life imprisonment. The family was given a compensation of ₹5.25 lakh. However, it was not sufficient for her son’s treatment, the petitioner said.
She said that she had made a detailed representation to the authorities seeking employment for her youngest son. Since there was no response she had filed a petition in 2023. The court had directed the authorities to consider the representation made. However, the Collector had passed a rejection order, she said. She challenged the order passed by the Collector and sought employment for her son.
Published – April 04, 2025 08:44 pm IST
