'20 Years Of Discrimination': Plea In Madras High Court Alleges Parayar Community Denied Hair Cuts In Pudhupatti Hamlet, Notice Issued To State

The petitioner, R Selvan, who belongs to the Periyar Ambedkar Makkal Kazhagam, has submitted that the caste discrimination in the hamlet denies the Scheduled Castes Parayar Community from getting a haircut in the barber shops within the hamlet.

Today, the matter came up before the Division Bench of Justices Paresh Upadhyay and Krishnan Ramasamy.

Additional Government Pleader J. Ashok has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, excluding the private parties who own the three barber shops in the hamlet.

The petitioner stated before the Court that nearly 150 families in the hamlet belong to the Parayar community. However, the remaining 450 families primarily belong to Konar, Kallar and Chettiyar Communities which are dominant castes. According to the petitioner, there are three barber shops and one laundry service provider in the hamlet.

The members of the Parayar Community are predominantly daily wage workers who have been subjected to the discriminatory practice of not getting a haircut from the barbershops for the past 20 years, he further states in the petition. He also added that the Parayar Community members have been forced to go to Karambakudi town to get a haircut because of the discrimination they face within the village.

The plea alleges a violation of the community's rights guaranteed under Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability) and Article 14 ( Right to Equality) of the Constitution.

It is further averred that despite giving a detailed representation to the Pudhokottai Superintendent of Police and other high-ranking officials on 29th January, 2022, no action has been taken to curb the discriminatory practice.

The petitioner also informed the Court that nothing fruitful has arisen from the petitioner's further representation on 31st January to the State Police officials, including the Director-General of Police. According to the petitioner, no action has been taken so far to visit and inspect the village/ hamlet endorsing the discriminatory practice.

The petitioner has prayed before the High Court for a writ of mandamus or any other similar directions that require the respondents to:

1. Complete the inspection.

2. Identify the discriminatory practices in existence against the Scheduled Castes Community, including the denial of the 'basic human right' to have a haircut.

3. Take appropriate action against people who are practising such discrimination.

Citing Rule 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rule 1955 which talks about measures for preventing caste discrimination, the petitioner has sought the aid of the Court to:

i) Identify the area where there is the possibility of an atrocity to take place or the reoccurrence of offences under the Act.

ii) Order the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police or any other officer to visit the identified area and review the law and order situation.