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 alleged abuses.

ORDER :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

The fourth respondent (since deceased) and the respondents 5 to 7 herein filed complaints before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu alleging violation of their human rights at the hands of the writ petitioners herein. The complaints were taken on file in SHRC Nos. 3068 to 3071 of 2011. The State Human Rights Commission vide order dated 29.11.2021 recommended payment of compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh each to the complainants and also taking disciplinary action against the writ petitioners herein. Questioning the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order. His contentions were two fold:

a) The materials placed before the Commission are not sufficient to link the writ petitioners with the alleged human rights violation.

b) The Human Rights Commission could not have entertained the complaints in view of the statutory bar set out in Reg 9(g) of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997. The learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision rendered in W.P Nos.17370 & 17376 of 2020 dated 05.07.2022 ( M.Chelladurai Vs. The Registrar ).

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants submitted that they were illegally detained by the writ petitioners and other police personnel and subjected to inhuman torture. He drew our attention to the medical records which indicated that the complainants /private respondents had suffered multiple injuries. Two of them had to be admitted as inpatients in the Government Hospital for more than five days. He also added that the subject matter before the Commission and the criminal court were not one and the same and hence, the statutory bar set out in Reg 9(g) is not attracted. Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he submitted that whenever human rights violation are alleged, Courts should take them seriously. When the Commission had found merit in the complainants' allegations and its findings are supported by solid evidence, this Court ought not to interfere. He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that in view of the Full Bench ruling reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16611 ( Abdul Sathar v. Principal Secretary to Government ), the State would not question the correctness of the impugned order.

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. On 10.03.2011, the head of a calf was found inside the compound of the RSS Office at Madurai. This led to registration of Crime No.370 of 2011 on the file of the S.S Colony Police Station under Sections 153 (A) and 505(1)(c) of IPC . One Murugadasan was appointed as the Investigation Officer. Considering the sensitive nature of the case, the investigation was handed over to CBCID. Final Report was filed and it was taken on file in C.CNo.10 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai. The complainants before the Human Rights Commission are the accused in the said criminal case.

6.The gist of the complaints was that Alhaj and one Abbas were picked up by the petitioners and other police personnel on 08.03.2011 ; Rafeek Raja and Shainsha were picked up on 09.03.2011 and Shahul Hameed was picked up on 10.03.2011 and that they were illegally detained and subjected to inhuman torture. The police falsely projected as if the complainants were arrested only in the morning of 11.03.2