Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
Lokeshwaran Ravi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.24853 & 24866 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Sharath Chandran, Mr.R.Harikrishnan, Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
For the Respondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Externment orders under the SC/ST Act require substantiation by a legitimate complaint or police report for validity.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 10 - Externment order by Principal District and Sessions Judge challenged - Allegation of personal vendetta behind the order - Previous complaints closed amicably - Court determines that externment not warranted as no atrocity demonstrated - The principle of external orders needs substantiation by a complaint or police report is emphasized. (Paras 9 and 10)
(B) Sections 4 of SC/ST Act - Misuse of authority cited - Court observes that proceedings against a public servant under the Act require administrative recommendation and cannot be initiated purely on judicial directive. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges a suo motu order that externed him based on his prior role as a Personal Security Officer of the Judge, stemming from accusations against him involving complaints that were amicably settled.
Findings of Court:
Externment order set aside due to lack of substantiation of actual atrocity and procedural violations in the issuing of orders.
Issues: The legitimacy of externment orders and proper procedures under the SC/ST Act are raised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of verified complaints or proper investigative findings undermines the externment order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act; moreover, the public servant’s actions under section 4 must be based on administrative inquiries.
Result: Both petitions are allowed and the orders are set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the externment order based on alleged personal motivations. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. externment orders must be supported by a legitimate legal and procedural framework. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 3. public servant actions require clear administrative recommendations to validate judicial actions. (Para 7) |
| 4. conclusive decision rendered to allow appeals based on procedural lapses. (Para 12 , 13) |
COMMON ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.24853 of 2025 has been filed by one Lokeshwaran Ravi, challenging the suo motu order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, dated 04.09.2025, in Crime No.283 of 2025 on the file of the Walajabad Police Station, externing him and other accused in Crime No.283 of 2025 under Section 10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act” for brevity).
2.Crl.O.P.No.24866 of 2025 has been filed by the State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Inspector of Police of Walajabad Police Station, challenging the suo motu order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, dated 08.09.2025, in Crime No.283 of 2025 on the file of the Walajabad Police Station, ordering remand of Mr.M.Sankar Ganesh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.
3.Both these Criminal Original Petitions are moved today after obtaining leave of this Court, making serious allegations against the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, that the entire orders are a result of personal motive and in order to wreck vengeance against his then Personal Security Officer (PSO), namely Lokeshwaran Ravi, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24853 of 2025.
4.Originally there were two complaints filed before the Walajabad Police Station, one by T.Sivakumar, S/o.Kalimuthu and another by Mrs.Parvathi, W/o.Murugan. The crux of the allegations in both the complaints are that there was some altercation between two groups, one group consisting of the then PSO of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, namely Lokeshwaran Ravi, his father-in-law and others, and the other group consisting of Parvathi and their family members. It is the allegation that the father-in-law of the PSO owned a Bakery and on 25.07.2025, when the said Parvathi's husband and others came to the Bakery to purchase some Bakery items, there arose some altercation between the two groups, which resulted in filing of complaints by both sides before the Walajabad Police Station and accordingly, two CSRs, viz., C.S.R.Nos.1121 of 2025 and 1122 of 2025 were registered by the Police on 25.07.2025. On enquiry, since both sides agreed to settle the matter amicably, on the basis of the statements recorded from the parties, both the complaints have been closed on 28.07.2025. Both the CSRs were disposed of on the same day.
5.However, it is the contention of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24853 of 2025 that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, under whom he was working, was under the belief that his PSO (petitioner herein) was responsible for sending some anonymous complaint against the Judge repeatedly. Therefore, in order to take action against the PSO, he had contacted the Superintendent of Police to change his PSO. To substantiate such conversation, the WhatsApp messages have also been filed by the State in Crl.O.P.No.24866 of 2025. The learned Judge, on coming to know about the closure of the complaint against his PSO, in order to wreck vengeance, called the concerned Inspector of Police and orally instructed him to register an FIR as against his PSO based on the closed CSRs. It is also alleged by the petitioners herein that the learned Judge threatened the Inspector of Police that, in the event of failure to register the FIR, action will be taken against the Inspector of Police under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. Pursuant to such direction, an FIR in Crime No.282 of 2025 came to be regist
