An Atrocity On The Law

Behind the street rage lies the Atrocity Act’s dilution after its weak execution

IN the famous case of Mahad water tank agitation, Narhari Damodar Vaidya vs Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Bombay High Court heard interesting contentions of the appellants who refused Dalits access to water, citing the “custom of times immemorial”. In his judgement on March 17, 1937, J. Broomfield summarised their contention as follows: “The appellants, on behalf of the caste Hindus of the town, of Mahad, sued the respondents, who represent the so-called ‘untouchables’, for a declaration that the Choudhari Tank near the town belongs to them, and that they alone have a right to use it and the respondents are not entitled to use it, and for an injunction against the respondents not to use it.”

There was no law to support the Dalit claim to access the water in the Mahad water tank case. The case went in favour of Dalits only because the water tank vested in the municipality of Mahad and was thus public property, and Narhari Vaidya could not conclusively prove the custom of exclusive use. A good 81 years later, on March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of India, under the Constitution of 1950, passed a judgement in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr. The times, indeed, have changed, but not the social prejudices.