KRISHNAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Justice in this land has long been measured not by the status of the accused, but by the depth of the wrong and the voice of the aggrieved. Tamil tradition recalls the legendary reign of Manu Neethi Cholan, who, upon hearing the cry of a voiceless cow whose calf was killed under his son's chariot, chose to subject his own son to the rigour of law, affirming that justice admits no exception, even for one's own kin. Centuries later, the constitutional promise of equality before law enshrined in Article 14, and the protection of life and dignity under Article 21, continue to echo that timeless principle. Yet, incidents of honour killing, driven by caste prejudice and misplaced notions of familial pride, remind us that the journey from legend to lived reality remains unfinished.

(2.) The present case, arising from the brutal killing of a young engineer belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, calls upon the justice delivery system to remain steadfast to that ancient yet enduring mandate that law must stand taller than lineage, office, or influence, and that the cry of a grieving mother must receive the same attentive response as the bell of justice once did in the Court of Manu Neethi Cholan.

(3.) The petition is projected as a "direction petition" invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, complaining that after filing of the final report and taking the case on file as S.C.No.120 of 2025, the learned Trial Judge issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner (A3) "without first issuing summons". The petitioner, while asserting that she has no overt act and that she was not arrested during investigation, seeks a mandamus-like direction to the Sessions Court to entertain and decide her recall petition immediately upon surrender.