KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the writ petition filed by 93 adivasis who are accused of various offences, including the murder of a policeman in connection with eviction of adivasi-encroachers of Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary in Wayanad on February 19, 2003 challenging the CBI investigation and seeking investigation into the police atrocity against the adivasis by an agency other than the Kerala Police and the CBI, and withdrawal of criminal cases pending trial against them.
Justice R Basant also dismissed a writ petition filed by Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha leader C K Janu alleging custodial torture and seeking compensation of Rs 10 lakh for it.
The court, however, partially allowed a writ petition filed on behalf of 10 adivasi children who were forced to suffer incarceration in connection with the incident and seeking Rs 10 lakh compensation on that score.
The court directed the government to secure a report through the State Human Rights Commission or any appropriate authority/ commission to be appointed about the details of the children who suffered and take appropriate action on the basis of the report.
The encroachment of the wildlife sanctuary led by the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha in February 2003 was part of agitation against the non-implementation of the agreement which the government had entered into with the adivasi leaders at the end of a 48-day agitation in front of the Secretariat in October 2001, offering free distribution of land to landless adivasis.
The forceful eviction was resisted by the agitators by holding public servants hostages and attacking and killing one police officer.
One adivasi had died in the police firing.
The local police registered six crimes in collection with the incident and started investigation.
While so acceding to the recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission, the state government entrusted the investigation of the cases with the CBI but not the alleged police atrocities. The CBI submitted its report justifying the use of force and firing by the police.
The court said the demand by Janu for compensation did not deserve to be considered favourably by the High Court in writ proceedings. She can seek compensation in accordance with law by resort to ordinary civil process.
The court noted that the petitioner was one facing allegation of grave criminality in two Sessions Cases and one Calendar Case, including abduction, illegal detention, causing hurt, murder and conspiracy.
It is a person facing such serious allegations who complains about the treatment meted out to her while she was in custody.
There is also a police version, that she had been manhandled by local people who handed over her to the police.
Regarding the petition by the 10 children, the court said there was no tangible data to order compensation by the court in writ proceedings.
Hence, the government should get report from the SHRC or the authority/commission to be appointed regarding the number of children who suffered, the circumstances, the nature of the contumacious responsibility of the state, the loss suffered by the children, the compensation payable etc, and act on the basis of the report.