SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2003

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.KALAIMATHI, JJ.
A.C.Karthikeyan - Petitioner
Vs.
State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P(MD)Nos.22673, 24168, 23338 & 23362 of 2022, 14715 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.16827, 18281, 17405, 17436 of 2022 & 12410 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel, for R.Rajasekar
For the Respondent:Mr.V.Muthuvelan, Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader, Mr.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Mr.T.Arul

Police misconduct, including illegal detention and assault, constitutes a violation of human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Human Rights defined under Section 2(d) as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity enforceable by courts - Police misconduct leading to illegal detention and injury to complainant's dignity constituted a violation. (Paras 11, 12, 14)

(B) Judicial Review - Human Rights Commission’s findings are subject to judicial review; commission is mandated to protect human rights despite pending criminal investigations. (Paras 19-24)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged the police forcibly detained and assaulted him while acting on behalf of his nephew regarding a civil dispute. The complainant was threatened by police to pay a sum of money, resulting in injury.

Findings of Court:
The police’s credibility was questioned; the court agreed with the SHRC that human rights were violated against the complainant who was assaulted and illegally detained by police personnel.

Issues: Whether the involvement of police constituted human rights violations; whether the SHRC could entertain the complaint amidst pending criminal investigations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that violations of human rights merit intervention by the SHRC regardless of parallel criminal proceedings and rejected the police’s argument of self-inflicted injuries.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Police misconduct, including illegal detention and assault, violates human rights under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Human Rights Commission can entertain complaints even when a case is sub judice, subject to judicial review, and must focus on human rights breach without assessing criminal investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Findings of the Human Rights Commission are subject to judicial review under Article 226, but courts exercise restraint and do not re-examine criminal case merits (!) (!) (!) . - Compensation and disciplinary recommendations can be awarded by the Commission for confirmed human rights violations (!) (!) (!) . - The Commission’s role is to address human rights infringements like dignity, liberty, and safety, regardless of parallel criminal proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

What are the rights of individuals against police misconduct under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993?

How can the Human Rights Commission entertain complaints that are sub judice before criminal courts?

What is the scope of judicial review over the Human Rights Commission’s findings in cases involving police misconduct?


Table of Content
1. complaint involves allegations of police assault and illegal detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 10)
2. court confirms violation of human rights as defined in the act. (Para 11 , 12)
3. shrc's authority to adjudicate human rights complaints amidst ongoing criminal cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. final ruling affirms shrc's decision and dismisses the petitions. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER :

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Selvaraj, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.14715 of 2023 and fourth respondent in the other four writ petitions, lodged complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. It was taken on file in SHRC No.7744 of 2019. The order dated 01.09.2022 disposing of the said complaint is under challenge in these writ petitions.

2.The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had civil disputes with his brother A.Vijayan and his son V.Anand. An agreement was entered into between V.Anand (complainant's nephew) and the complainant on 04.01.2017 whereby the complainant agreed to relinquish all his rights with respect to one of the properties, namely, Anand Theatre, in favour of V.Anand. It was agreed that V.Anand would pay a sum of 80 lakhs rupees in installments. Subsequently, another agreement was entered into on 10.04.2017 between A.Vjayan and the complainant settling all the disputes. However, with regard to a particular property, namely “Anandha Bhavan Hotel”, located at Marthandam junction, the dispute remained unresolved. The complainant had inducted a tenant in the said property.The understanding between the complainant and his brother Vijayan was that Vijayan could seek possession of the said property only after the expiry of the lease period on 20.01.2022.

3.In connection with the said issue, Anand had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the complainant. Anand wanted the complainant to return the said amount. This was the bone of contention between the complainant and Anand. At this stage, one Karthikeyan assumed charge as DSP, Thuckalay. The complainant received oral intimation from the local Police that he should appear before the said Karthikeyan, DSP for enquiry on 21.05.2019 at around 07.00 p.m. The complainant accordingly appeared before the DSP. The DSP insisted that the complainant should pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to Anand. The complainant was threatened with dire consequences if he failed to do so. The complainant, however, refused to submit to the demand of the DSP.

4.On the next day i.e., 22.05.2019, the complainant received a formal summon to appear before the DSP in Marthandam Police Station at around 06.00 p.m. Karthikeyan reiterated his earlier threat. Once again the complainant declined to accede. While so, on 30.05.2019 at around 05.00 p.m, Mohan Kumar, Rejini and Stephen, Police personnel belonging to the Special Squad of the office of the DSP, entered the complaint's premises and dragged him. He was forcibly pushed into a police vehicle. He was also beaten up. Mohan Kumar hit the complainant against a steel bar inside the vehicle. The complainant was abused and then taken to Marthandam Police Station. The complainant was kept in illegal detention for a few hours. He was then taken to and detained in the premises of Kottikodu Police Station. He was also blindfolded. Thereafter, Karthikeyan, DSP, Thuckalay came to the spot and told the complainant that he should arrange to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to Anand and if he failed to do so, he would be falsely implicated in criminal cases. The complainant was again beaten up by Karthikeyan.

5.Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai at about 09.30 a.m, detained there till evening and then shifted to the Government Hospital, Asaripallam. The complainant was kept in the ICU and discharged on 08.06.2019. In the meanwhile, the complainant obtained anticipatory bail even though he was shown as having been arrested on 31.05.2019 itself. Seeking compensation for the in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top