Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.SUNDAR, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ
N.Ganesalingapandi – Appellant
Versus
State Human Rights Commission (Tamilnadu) – Respondent
ORDER :
K .GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Case No.6720 of 2017 dated 28.08.2019 passed by the 1st respondent herein, directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant/2nd respondent and recover the said amount from each respondents therein.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
a. The second respondent in this writ petition viz., Thiru. Syed Abutagir approached the State Human Rights Commission alleging that he is an Auto driver and his wife is a differently abled person. While so, on 01.08.2017 at about 6.p.m after dropping the School students in their houses and while returning back to the Auto stand, the respondents and other unknown persons intercepted him and took him to the Kenikarai Police Station.
b. His further allegation in the complaint is that, in the police station he was forced to remove his clothes and was subjected to harassment by the respondents/Police Officials therein. On the next day, he was taken to Pattinampakkam and Sakkarakottai check post and other places by the respondents/Police Off
Police officials must adhere to lawful procedures in arrest and detention; failure to do so constitutes a violation of human rights.
The court upheld the State Human Rights Commission's findings of police misconduct, confirming the need for law enforcement to respect citizens' rights and the burden of proof on the accused to dispr....
Allegations of human rights violations must be substantiated by evidence; mere claims without corroboration do not establish a violation.
The court emphasized that human rights commission findings should not interfere with ongoing criminal prosecution, highlighting the need for clear evidence when linking law enforcement officers to al....
Illegal detention beyond 24 hours and assault by police constitutes human rights violation, upholding SHRC recommendations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence supporting the violation of human rights and the proper closure of complaints after due enquiry.
Excessive force during an arrest by law enforcement constitutes a human rights violation, meriting compensation, while disciplinary action may not be appropriate if initial actions were lawful.
Writ petition allowed as the petitioner failed to establish human rights violations due to lack of supporting evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
