Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ
P.Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission – Respondent
WP No. 32382 of 2018
For the Appellant: R.Ganeshkumar
For the Respondents: T.K.Saravanan, AGP - R1&R2, K.V.Sajeev Kumar, Anban Bharathy - R3, S.T. Bharath Gowtham - R4, T.Divya, S.Selva Thirumurugan - R5
Police must comply with statutory procedures during arrests to ensure legality, otherwise state liability for human rights violations follows.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Human rights violations due to illegal arrest and custodial violence - The petitioner is a police officer accused of unlawfully arresting and assaulting the victim, infringing upon his right to life and liberty. The State Human Rights Commission directed compensation due to the violation of rights. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Legal Obligations - Police Misconduct - The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming that due process must be followed in arrest, and non-compliance violated statutory safeguards, leading to state liability for human rights violations. The Apex Court highlighted the principle of state liability for damages caused by public servants. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged misuse of power by a police officer, resulting in wrongful detention and assault, leading to significant injuries and subsequent medical treatment for the victim. There were arguments regarding the nature of the arrest and the conditions under which it was made, with accusations of procedural violations.
Findings of Court:
The SHRC’s order was upheld, ruling that the victim's rights were violated and the compensation directed must be honored.
Issues: The main questions revolved around the legality of the victim's arrest and whether human rights violations had occurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the failure to follow prescribed procedures in law constitutes a violation of personal liberties protected under the Constitution and recognized state liability for human rights abuses.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of human rights violations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural compliance in arrests. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. importance of adhering to legal standards in custodial processes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 4. recognition of state liability for misconduct. (Para 10 , 12) |
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as “SHRC” for the sake of clarity and convenience) in SHRC Case No. 1261 of 2013, wherein the Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the victim (PW1), Mr. Manjunathsamy, S/o Kumarasamy, and was also permitted to recover Rs. 2,00,000/- from the 1st respondent before the SHRC and Rs. 1,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent. Additionally, the Government was directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to lodge criminal prosecution against the said respondents. Factual Background
2.1. The 3rd respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” for the sake of brevity) filed a complaint before the SHRC alleging that the petitioner, who was then serving as Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Circle, under whose jurisdiction Malliakkarai Police Station falls, had foisted several false cases against the victim, Mr. Manjunathsamy, through Malliakkarai Police Station. While some cases were still pending, the victim had been acquitted in others. It was further alleged that the victim had submitted complaints alleging corruption by the petitioner to various higher officials of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Provoked by these complaints, on 11.01.2013, the victim was allegedly arrested while eating in a hotel at Salem, brought to Malliakkarai Police Station, and assaulted with a lathi and iron rod. A false case was then registered against him, and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Attur, on 13.01.2013 at 6:00 PM, at which point his legs were swollen, and he was unable to walk.
2.2 The complainant also stated that she lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate about the assault, but the Magistrate failed to record the statement. The victim was remanded to judicial custody for 12 days. On 14.01.2013, the jail authorities took him to Government Hospital, Attur, and later to Government Hospital, Salem, for further treatment, where he narrated the assault by the petitioner and other police personnel.
2.3. The petitioner/respondent entered appearance and denied all allegations. He stated that a complaint had been filed by one Ashokan, alleging that the victim had collected Rs. 3,000/- as consideration for helping him obtain a Transfer Certificate from Pavendar Arts College, Thalaivasal, but had failed to assist. It was alleged that the victim had later gone to the complainant’s house and assaulted him. A case was registered in Crime No. 5/2013 for offences under Sections 2 94(b), 355, and 506(ii) IPC by the 2nd respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner stated that the victim was arrested on 13.01.2013 at 14:00 hrs at Keeripatti, and the arrest was informed to one Selvakumar of Keeripatti. The petitioner claimed that minimum force was used during the arrest as the victim resisted, and the victim was thereafter taken for medical treatment and produced before the Magistrate, who remanded him and directed the jail authorities to provide medical treatment.
2.4. The victim, Mr. Manjunathsamy, examined himself as PW1, filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination, and marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10. The petitioner and other police officials did not adduce oral evidence but marked 7 documents as Exhibits R1 to R7. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the SHRC passed the impugned order.
3. Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the victim’s arrest was made in connection with Crime No. 5/2013 for cognizable a
