Tamil Nadu Jallikattu Protests 2017: Police Response Valid, Justice Rajeswaran Commission Reports

The Justice S. Rajeswaran Commission of Inquiry, constituted by the Tamil Nadu government in 2017 to inquire into the circumstances that led to violence at the jallikattu ban protests at a few locations in the State in January that year, has found “validity” in the police’s claims that “undesirable elements” with “nefarious motives” had infiltrated the peaceful protests.

The commission’s primary contention was: “When you [protestors] pick up stones, they [the police] pick up lathis.” The report, which has already been submitted to the government, has not been made public, but Frontline spoke to Justice Rajeswaran (retd.) exclusively, who shared its core contents.

Report’s findings

The report exonerates the police from committing any excesses during the protests that were held over several days at Chennai’s famous Marina beach as well as at Alanganallur near Madurai and, at Coimbatore. Various rights activists and civil society groups had alleged police excesses against the protesters.

In an exclusive interaction with Frontline, Justice Rajeswaran, a former Madras High Court judge who led the one-man commission that investigated the violence, explained how he had arrived at his findings. He said that he had submitted only a 950-page, double-volume report since the government did not ask for a synopsis (similar to the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission report on the Thoothukudi police firing.)

Also Read | Cry for kambala

Justice Rajeswaran said that in his inquiries with various stakeholders he found no prima facie evidence to support the allegations of police using excessive force against protesters, as claimed by victims and human rights groups. He did not recommend any compensation for most of the affected but suggested that the State should sympathetically consider the future of the youths aged 18 to 23 who were arrested during the protests (More than 3,000 youths were charged for various offences during the protests. The government withdrew many cases but the ones transferred to the CB-CID investigation remain.)

The non-political and popular protests began on January 17 and went on until January 23, paralysing the entire State. They were organised to demand the lifting of the 2014 Supreme Court ban on the bull-taming sport following petitions filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal welfare organisations. The petitions cited that the traditional event involved cruelty to bulls. The protesters held that it was a long-held Tamil agrarian tradition.

The protests were completely peaceful until the police abruptly intervened on January 23 and used force to evict the areas, claiming that the situation was getting out of control.

On January 23, media reports claimed that miscreants set fire to the Ice House Police station near Marina beach and torched 15 motorcycles and that 22 policemen were injured in stone throwing. The protesters accused the police of orchestrating the violence. Incidents of stone-throwing and arson were reported from other parts of the State too.

The protests had begun as a small, village-centric demonstration by a group of bull tamers and breeders in Alanganallur village in Madurai district on January 17, 2017. The village, a hub for the popular sport for generations, has often been in the spotlight for its frequent protests and agitations against the ban. The 2017 protest, however, expanded far beyond the village and spread like wildfire across the entire State, catching the government off-guard with its passion and spontaneity.

By January 19, a rapid social media campaign had transformed the protest into a massive movement involving thousands of people and bringing normal life to a halt. As public anger raged after the alleged incidents of police high-handedness, the government constituted the Judicial Commission on January 31, 2017. The commission submitted its report in January 2020. For reasons unknown, the report was not made public, and remains unpublished, despite numerous pleas from all involved parties.

Core contents

Explaining the report’s core contents, the former judge pointed out that the State government passed a special ordinance after the ban to ensure that jallikattu would continue to be conducted each year during the Pongal festival. The President’s assent to the ordinance was also secured. “The police blamed the protesters for not giving up the agitation despite the special law being enacted,” he said.

After the protesters’ primary objective of conducting jallikattu was achieved, the central question that the commission sought to investigate was why some vested elements continued with the protest.

Even an appeal from the then Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam to call off the agitations went unheeded. According to Justice Rajeswaran, police records claimed that fringe elements in the protests shifted their focus from jallikattu to other contentious issues such as the Sri Lankan Navy’s attacks on Tamil fishermen, the Centre’s imposition of Hindi, Cauvery water-sharing, and the Mullai Periyar dam stalemate. The police also claimed that these elements sought to exploit the tremendous size and reach of the jallikattu protests to demand instant solutions on other issues.

(An affidavit filed before the Commission by the then Coimbatore Commissioner of Police A. Amalraj, a copy of which is with Frontline, stated that “a few anti-social elements, fundamental groups, and religious groups have intruded in the said crowd, and they have conspired to create law and order problem by indulging in committing offences like damaging public and private properties…” Amalraj named the outfits in his affidavit. The police filed similar affidavits in Coimbatore and other places.)

“While exploring those questions, clarity emerged. The commission could identify the exact reasons behind all those unfortunate developments,” Justice Rajeswaran said.

Infiltration by undesirable elements

According to him, after the majority of the crowds had vacated protest sites across the State following the promulgation of the ordinance, “a few groups stubbornly remained in the public spaces, disregarding all reasoning and requests from senior officials”.

(The Tamil Nadu Governor promulgated the ordinance on January 21, 2017, after the Tamil Nadu Assembly, in a special session, passed the Tamil Nadu Amendment Bill to amend appropriate sections in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960), a Central Act that falls under Entry 17 of the Concurrent List, thus empowering the State to conduct jallikattu. A five-member Constitution Bench upheld it in May 2023.)

Justice Rajeswaran told Frontline that the commission saw valid reason in the State’s testimonial that groups with dubious antecedents tried to exploit popular sentiment to create law and order problems at a time when the government was preparing for the Republic Day celebrations.

“The protesters at Marina beach had to be removed forcefully, since the entire stretch of Kamarajar Road, abutting Marina beach, had to be sanitised for security before the parade and ceremonies.”

The former judge said that the commission could not dismiss the police’s claims. He pointed to Panneerselvam’s statement that the vadivaasal (the gate through which bulls are released into rings) would open and that tamers can tame the bulls. The protestors still did not relent, he said, adding that they erected roadblocks at Alanganallur and refused to let the Chief Minister inaugurate the jallikattu. “He had to cancel his visit. It was clear aggression. The police said that despite villagers’ appeal to call off the protest, outsiders took the law into their hands.”

(The CB-CID, which took over the investigation on March 28, 2017, issued charge sheets to 64 persons for the Alanganallur violence. It stated that outsiders usurped the peaceful protest by locals, who requested them to leave after they heard of the Chief Minister’s assurance. But they defied them too. The CB-CID claims that when the police asked them to disperse, they threw stones and engaged in arson. The police, therefore, “resorted to mild force” to disperse the crowds and it arrested several people, including outsiders, activists, and members of different organisations.)

Justice Rajeswaran said: “When the majority of the public dispersed, why did a minority choose to continue? When the Chief Minister publicly urged the demonstrators to end their protests, why did they focus on issues unrelated to jallikattu? Despite the police exercising patience and restraint throughout the six days of large-scale protests, why did some individuals resort to stone-throwing in Madurai, Coimbatore, and Chennai Marina? These are the critical questions the Commission has analysed in its report.”

The former judge said that his two-volume report includes hundreds of exhibits, photographs, documents, affidavits, and witness statements. The first volume deals with the history, tradition, cultural and emotional links attached to jallikattu, while the second concentrates on the legal battle, the Supreme Court ban, the people’s anger, the protests, and the subsequent violence.

A government official, who requested anonymity, told Frontline that 1,901 persons, including police officials and members of the general public, had been deposed before the commission, which received 1,949 sworn affidavits.

The commission could not recommend compensation to anyone as the majority could not furnish sufficient documents and proofs. In Chennai, for example, those who demanded compensation alleging that the police had torched their motorcycles, failed to submit adequate supporting documents, the judge said.

Affected youths

It is the 200 youths, mostly college students and fresh graduates, who were detained during the protests, who now face an uncertain future. They face charges under various sections, including 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 332, 341, 353, 188, 506(II), and also under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property Damages and Losses Act and the Indian Railways Act.

The CB-CID has been pursuing their cases for the past eight years at various trial courts in Chennai, Madurai, and Coimbatore. While a few have ended in acquittal, others are facing significant delays as a result of technical issues, such as the absence of witnesses and the unavailability of the co-accused.

However, the status of many cases, which Frontline accessed, show that they have been either “disposed or further action dropped or undetected or closed”. The State government has been sympathetic, withdrawing 308 cases, including against 38 students for their role in the violence at Marina beach in 2017. On February 5, 2021, it also withdrew all the petty cases. Only a few youths in Chennai and Coimbatore still face court proceedings, but several arraigned in Madurai are still fighting.

Also Read | The season of jallikattu: Bull taming to the fore in Tamil Nadu

J. Arthur Kumar, a Coimbatore-based lawyer and activist, who, along with J. Balamurugan of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, appeared for the arrested youths before the commission at Coimbatore, said that it was unfortunate the police had arrested even bystanders in Coimbatore. “Many college students who took part in peaceful protests are suffering,” he said.

Saravanan, who lost his job after being charged in the Alanganallur case, is now tending to his bulls. “The company fired me because of the case,” he said. Another young protester, a fresh law graduate from Madurai, is yet to be enrolled in the bar council. “As the cases are in the trial stage, the police have refused to give us a no objection certificate [which is required for enrolment],” he said. Another graduate has not been able to join the police as inspector for which he was selected before the protest.

N. Saravanakumar, a Madurai-based lawyer who has been appearing for the accused, said: “Many named in the CB-CID charge sheets are outsiders. A few had come to their native villages like Alanganallur from overseas for Pongal and took part in the protests. Before the charge sheet could be filed, they went back. As the summons could not be coordinated and streamlined, the cases are dragging on for years.”

Unlike the Thoothukudi incident, where civil society members collectively provided legal support to the victims of violence, those involved in the jallikattu protests have been left without broad support. Except in Madurai, where Saravanakumar and a few others are offering legal assistance to the charged youths, most protesters must fight their cases individually. Now, with the details of the Justice S. Rajeswaran Commission revealed, many feel the government might review these cases sympathetically, keeping in mind the young age of those involved.