Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4757
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
Vijaya
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others
H.C.P.No.1334 of 2009
Decided on : 10-11-2009
For the Petitioner:P. Vijendran, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.R. Balsubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation for violation of fundamental rights can only be awarded when there is proof of illegal detention and torture, and public law remedy for compensation can be resorted to only when the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution are violated.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Sections 4(1)(b), 4(1)(g), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) - The court analyzed the allegations of illegal detention and torture of the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The court considered the medical reports, status reports, and submissions of both parties to determine the legality of the detention and the alleged torture by police officials. The court also referred to relevant case laws to establish the legal principles governing compensation for violation of fundamental rights and the criteria for awarding compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition alleging that her husband was illegally tortured and detained under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The detenu was arrested for distilling illicit liquor and sustained injuries, leading to the petitioner seeking compensation and departmental action against the police personnel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenu was arrested as per law and the allegations of illegal detention and torture were not substantiated. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no proof for illegal detention and torture, and declined to award compensation.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the detenu's arrest under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the alleged torture by police officials, and the petitioner's claim for compensation and departmental action against the police personnel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as long as the injuries are not proved to be caused by the police officials, it cannot award compensation. It also emphasized that public law remedy for compensation can only be resorted to when the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution are violated.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with the observation that the court cannot issue the direction as prayed for by the petitioner. The court also stated that the order will not prevent the petitioner or the detenu from seeking appropriate remedy through the competent court jurisdiction.
N. Kirubakaran, J.
This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu for the following relief:
"Directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to take necessary departmental action against the erring police personnel attached to the 4th respondent and also directing the respondents to pay necessary and adequate compensation to the detenu E.Iyyanar, S/o.Elumalai aged about 39 years for the maltreatment of the 4th respondent during the custody period."
2. Thecase of the petitioner is that her husband E.Iyyappan, son of Elumalai was illegally tortured and detained under the fifth respondent. She states that her husband is a District Treasurer of the Human Rights Protection Centre (HRPC) and he has been continuously working for the peoples right cause including against the atrocities committed by the police officials.
3. The petitioner contended that the fourth respondent had taken her husband to Ercuard Hill Station and where he was attacked indiscriminately and photographs were taken as if the detenu was distilling illicit liquor. The detenu was charged under Sections 4(1)(b), 4(1)(g), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and a case was registered in Crime No.318 of 2009. The petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Salem, who remanded him to judicial custody on 8. 2009. It is further case of the petitioner that the detenu made a complaint against the police officials namely 1) Mr.Raja Ramaveerapandian, Inspector of Police, Attayampatti, 2) Ravikumar, Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station and 3) Vinayagam, Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station at the time of remand, and the Magistrate refused to register and take action on the complaint given by the detenu though the detenu was severely attacked and sustained fractured in his left forearm.
4. The petitioner contended that she made a complaint on 8. 2009 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem and to the Chief Minister Grievance Cell and others and a representation was also sent to the District Collector on 8. 2009. The C.M.P.No.3064 of 2009 filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate-IV, Salem seeking direction to provide medical treatment to the detnue was dismissed on 12.l8.2009. In nutshell the petitioner alleged that the detenu was illegally arrested and beaten severely by the fourth respondent.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition has been filed. This court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner by an order dated 28. 2009 directed the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem to make arrangement for medical examination on the detenu and in the event if any injury was found on the body of the detenu, the medical officer should arrange for necessary treatment to be given to the detenu and the Judicial Magistrate should also collect necessary medical reports from the medical officer.
6. Thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem submitted his report stating that the detenu was sent to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem for medical examination and treatment. As directed by the Dean of the Medical College a committee was formed consisting of specialist and they examined the detenu and submitted a final report, which reads as follows:
"Plaster of paris already applied was removed and reapplication with plaster of paris above elbow was done after reviewing in the X-rays. X-rays show communicated fracture of olecranon left ulna. Patient was treated with IV fluids antibiotics and pail killers.
On examination of the patient by the board members on 28. 2009, patients conscious, comfortably afebrele obese not jaundiced, not anaemic, not cyanosed, no gluvving and no lymphadenopathy. No external injuries. Patient is on above elbow plaster of pairs slab left upper limb. Cardio vascular and respiratory systems were normal abdomen was soft, no Organomegaly no free fluid. Central nervous systems and locomotor systems normal..."
7. The learned Judici
