Surprising That Even In Chandrayan Era, Katta Panchayats Are Conducted To Excommunicate A Person: Madras High Court

Justice D Nagarjun of the Madurai bench thus directed the District Collector to constitute a committee consisting of the District Revenue Officer, Revue Divisional Officer, Additional Superintendent of Police, etc to enquire into the allegations of ex-communication of a man and submit a report.

The court was hearing the plea of one Muthupalam of Rajapalayam village seeking directions to the police to initiate appropriate action against certain villagers and prevent social boycott/ex-communication of him and his family.

Muthupalam had submitted that he was a member of the Rajapalayam Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Society which was established to raise contributions from the Hindu Nadars residing in Rajapalayam which in turn was used to establish Educational Institutions and conduct spiritual festivals.

Muthupalam informed the court that he had rented three shops and was paying a monthly rent to the society without any default. Further, he informed that since the shops were in a dilapidated condition, he sought permission from the society to use the bore-well water. However, the Executive Committee of the society conducted a meeting and asked Muthupalam to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for using the bore-well water without prior approval and also asked him to extend an oral apology during the Panchayat.

The court was informed that when Muthupalam refused to vacate the shops on direction by the President, Secretary, and other members of the society, a group of people illegally closed all the shops and even threw all his belongings on the road causing heavy loss. Following this, Muthupalam and his family were ex-communicated and the private respondents even directed the people in the community to not allow Muthupalam and his family to worship in the temple.

On the other hand, the private respondents submitted that Muthupalam was not paying rent for the rental shops and had even made improvement works in the shop without seeking permission of the Trustees of the society. They also submitted that Muthupalam had used excess water than the two pots that was permitted for every shop’s usage. It was also submitted that he had himself closed the shops and was filing complaints saying that he was forcefully evicted. They also submitted that neither Muthupalam nor his family were ex-communicated.

Though the Police reported that there was no ex-communication based on their enquiry, the court noted that the Police had not placed any details in respect of the enquiry conducted or details of the persons they had enquired. Thus, the court opined that a proper enquiry had to be conducted to know whether excommunication was being done or not. The court was also surprised that a person was boycotted merely for using excess water.

“It is very difficult to digest that a person is excommunicated/social boycotting on a simple allegation that he used excess water to his shop. There is no law, statute procedure and bye-laws, under which, such amount of Rs.15,000/- has been imposed,” the court observed.

Thus, the court directed the authorities to file a report after proper enquiry.

Case Title: Muthupalam v The District Collector and Others

Case No: WP(MD) No.23937 of 2022