'Caste Bias Must Be Uprooted': Madras High Court Observes In Kavin Honour Killing Case, Flags Selective Non-Arrest Of Accused Cop

"Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar," the Madras High Court recently remarked while dealing with a case relating to honour killing of a Scheduled Caste man— Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.Stressing on the rights of victims and witnesses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that the investigating agency and the judiciary should work seamlessly to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single citizen should not be sacrificed at the altar of caste. It observed, “Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who ensured equality before law and equal protection of laws. Even in a mature democracy, caste atrocities remain a dark scar, demanding societal surgery through firm enforcement of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The Investigating Agency and the Judiciary must work in seamless coordination to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single Indian citizen is never sacrificed at the altar of caste,” the court said. It also frowned upon the investigating agency for "selectively" not arresting the mother of Kavin's partner, sub-inspector of police and the third accused in the crime.Kavin Selvaganesh, a techie working in Chennai belonging to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, was hacked to death on July 27, 2025 by the family of the woman, with whom he allegedly had a love affair, who belonged to the Hindu Maravar community. The court had previously refused to grant bail to the girl's father Saravanan. The girl's mother, Krishnakumari, filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS to direct the Additional District Court Tirunelveli to consider her recall warrant application on the same day of her surrender. The petitioner had argued that the trial court had issued a non-bailable warrant against her without issuing a summons first. She also argued that she had no overt act and was not even arrested during the investigation. The prosecution challenged the maintainability of the plea and argued that the petitioner had sought to indirectly challenge the judicial act of issuing a warrant without even challenging the order. It was also submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the same court which issued the warrant and the inherent power of the court under Section 528 BNSS could not be used to substitute the statutory procedure. The victim's mother also opposed the plea and submitted that since the case of a brutal honour killing, any indulgence under inherent power may undermine the due course of the trial. It was also submitted that since the victim was a member of the SC/ST community, the right of the victim-side under Section 15A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act must be scrupulously respected. The court agreed with the respondents and observed that the court's inherent rights could not be used to create a parallel appellate/supervisory mechanism for every procedural grievance. The court also noted that when the procedural code gave a remedy to the petitioner, the direction sought by the petitioner would trench upon the trial court's control over its process. During the course of the hearing, the court also found fault with the investigating agencies not arresting the petitioner when she was placed on the same footing as some of the other accused. The court added that while it was within the investigating agency's discretion to make decision regarding arrest, such power should be exercised on objective consideration and applied uniformly, especially in grave offences. Considering the brutality involved in the case, the court noted that the decision of not arresting the petitioner came with a "tangible risk" of witness intimidation, striking at the fairness of the investigation. It added that such selectie exercise of discretion would erode the public confidence."This Court is constrained to observe that selective exercise of investigative discretion, especially where the accused occupy positions within the law-enforcement machinery, has the potential to erode public confidence in the fairness of criminal investigation," the court observed.Thus, considering all the facts, the court was not inclined to grant the relief sought for and dismissed the plea. The court however gave liberty to the petitioner to appear/surrender before the Additional District Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Subash Babu, Senior counsel, M/s. Subash Law Office Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Thanga Aravindh. B, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. B. Mohan, For Mr. C. M. Arumugam Case Title: Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 Case No: Crl. O.P.(MD).No.20545 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The...

'Caste Bias Must Be Uprooted': Madras High Court Observes In Kavin Honour Killing Case, Flags Selective Non-Arrest Of Accused Cop

Upasana Sajeev

Tags