Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1164
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.K. AGRAWAL & N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, JJ.
V. Ponnambalam
Versus
The Principal Secretary To Government Home Department, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.5022 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
Decided on : 01-03-2013
For the Petitioner:P.G. Santhoshkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Ms. A. Jayanthi, Spl. G.P.
The necessity of following legal procedures, including the presence of a lady constable, in the arrest of a female person, as highlighted in the State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India.
Headnote:
Human Rights - Illegal Detention - State Human Rights Commission Act, 2004 - Section 18 - The court discussed the illegal detention of a woman by the police and the award of compensation by the State Human Rights Commission. The court referred to the State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India to highlight the legal provisions regarding the arrest of a female person and the necessity of the presence of a lady constable.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission awarding compensation for the violation of human rights caused to the deceased Irulayee, who was illegally detained by the police and subsequently committed suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the State Human Rights Commission, based on the factual findings and the admission made by the petitioner in the affidavit.
Issues: Violation of human rights, illegal detention, compensation for the deceased's legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the admission made by the petitioner in the affidavit, which confirmed the illegal detention of the deceased and the factual findings of the State Human Rights Commission.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in limine, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the second respondent in SHRC Case No.1460 of 2004/C2, ordering a sum of Rs.50,000/-as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Irulayee, payable by the petitioner, for violation of human rights caused to the deceased Irulayee.
2. The case of the complainant-third respondent herein is that he is the son-in-law of one Irulayee, who was a divorced wife of one Alagar and he contracted a second marriage, in which one Malaikannu was born to him. The said Malaikannu allegedly distilled illicit arrack and Sivagangai PEW Police came in search of the said Malaikannu and in that process, instead of searching the said Malaikannu in his house, the police team headed by the petitioner, who was then working as Sub-Inspector, came to the residence of the third respondent-complainant at about 4.00 a.m., on 20.2.2004. The third respondent-complainant and his wife had been to their field for irrigation and the police team headed by the petitioner enquired the mother-in-law of the complainant, namely Irulayee regarding the whereabouts of the said Malaikannu. Not satisfied with the reply of Irulayee, she was forcibly dragged out of her house to the Police Station at about 4.00 a.m. on 20.2.2004 and she was kept in custody in the Police Station upto 10.00/11.00 a.m. On the same day at about 3.45 p.m., the complainant's mother-in-law Irulayee committed suicide by consuming poison.
3. The third respondent preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission with a specific plea that the said police had taken the old woman, i.e., the deceased Irulayee on 20.2.2004 at 4.00 a.m. to the Police Station and the same was not denied by the writ petitioner in the counter affidavit filed before the State Human Rights Commission.
4. The State Human Rights Commission, based on the averments made in the complaint, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner took the said Irulayee at 4.00 a.m. to the Police Station on 20.2.2004, i.e., during odd hours and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the said deceased Irulayee in equal proportion, with further direction to the Department to recover the said amount of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph 4 petitioner admitted as follows:
"I state that while I was in charge in Sivagangai Prohibition Enforcement Wing as a Sub-Inspector of Police, on 20.2.2004 at about 03.00 a.m, I and my subordinates were in rounds regarding our duty, at that time, I received an information that one Malaikannu, who is an habitual illicit distiller is in the 3rd respondent's house and hence I went to arrest him in their home at about 04.00 a.m. The said Malaikannu is none other than the 3rd respondent's son-in-law. When I asked the said Malaikannu to come out of the house, the 3rd respondent's mother-in-law one Irulayee (Deceased) came out of the house. I enquired about the said Malaikannu and asked him to come out of home but the said Irulayee started to shout against me and my subordinates by using filthy languages. By hearing her sound the 3rd respondent's brother one Amaravathy came there and by explaining him we took the said Irulayee to the police station. On the same day after some time about 8 a.m one Murugesan and Muniyandi came to the police station and explained that she had nothing to do with the illicit distiller Malaikannu. Hence she was allowed to go home and she was never detained at the police station for any other cause. After she returned home she consumed insecticide and despite the treatment in a private hospital, she died of poisoning at about 3.45 p.m."
6. Thus, it is evident that the said Irulayee was unnecessarily taken to the Police Station and she was kept in police station from 4.00 a.m to 8.00 a.m. The said detention was rightly taken note of by the State Human Rights Commission fo
