Law enforcement officers must uphold and protect human rights; failure to do so results in accountability and potential penalties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindran,J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17050 of 2008 is the appellant. In the Writ Petition, the appellant challenged Ext.P1 order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Ext.P3, the order passed by the State Government on 22.4.2008 giving effect to the directions contained in Ext.P1. By judgment delivered on 9.6.2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal.

2. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission initiated suo motu proceedings based on a news report that appeared in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 26.4.2007 that the fourth respondent's son was beaten up by the petitioner on the public road. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission thereupon directed the Chief Investigation Officer to make a preliminary enquiry and to file report. After the Kerala State Human Rights Commission initiated suo motu proceedings, the fourth respondent also filed a complaint before the Commission. As directed by the Commission, the Chief Investigation Officer conducted an enquiry and filed a report stating that there is a prima facie case for enquiry by the WA 1401/08 2 Commission against the petitioner and two others. Based on the complaint filed by the fourth respondent and the report submitted by the Chief Investigation Officer, notice was issued to the petitioner and others concerned to appear before the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission conducted an enquiry wherein oral evidence was also adduced. Ext.P1 order was thereupon passed. In Ext.P1 the Commission held as follows:

"I therefore hold that the boy Arif Muhammed was beaten at first by RW1 and thereafter by RW3 while he was taken to police station in the presence of RW2 and another police constable. RW2, the Principal Sub Inspector, being a superior officer ought to have prevented RW3 from beating the boy when he was very much present while the boy was at the junction as well as when he was taken to the police station in the jeep. He failed to prevent RW3 from beating the boy and therefore failed in his duty in preventing the said act by RW3.

In view of the above facts, I am of the view that PW2 is entitled to compensation, as there is clear case of human rights violation in the case by RW1 to RW3 since RW1 beat Arif Muhammed, a boy aged 17 years and that he was also beaten by RW3 which was not prevented by RW2 who is the senior officer of RW3.

Accordingly, I direct the Government to pay a WA 1401/08 3 sum of rupees ten thousand (Rs.10,000/-) as compensation to the boy Arif Muhammed. The Government is at liberty to deduct a sum of rupees five thousand (Rs.5,000/-) from the salary of RW1 Dileep Khan, a sum of rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000/-) from the salary of RW2 Vinod Kumar and a sum of rupees two thousand (Rs.2,000/-) from the salary of RW3 Janardhanan Pillai totaling to a sum of rupees ten thousand which is to be paid as compensation to the victim Arif Muhammed. The above compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) will be paid to the boy within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The Government is also directed to initiate departmental enquiry against RW1 to RW3 as well as other police officers who were present at the junction and in the jeep for suitable departmental action against them."

3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Commission, the State Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 22.4.2008 directing the Director General of Police to pay Rs.10,000/- fixed by the Commission as compensation to the fourth respondent's son and to deduct the sum of Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and the balance sum of Rs.5,000/- from the salary of Vinodkumar, Sub Inspector of Police and Janardhanan Pillai, Police Constable. As noticed earlier, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the said WA 1401/08 4 orders. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the findings of the Commission in Ext.P1 cannot be characterised as perverse and therefore cannot be interfe