IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.1642 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.1693 and 1694 of 2026

1.C.Sivakumar Sub Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore 641 020 Presently working as Inspector of Police Arakkonam Taluk Police Station Ranipet District

2.M.Jagathesprabhu Head Constable, Aliyar Police Station, Pollachi 642 101 Presently working as Head Constable 1135 PEW Unit, Periyanayakkan Palayam, Coimbatore District

3.M.Anandhan Police Constable, Anaimalai Police Station, Anaimalai 642 104

4.Selvaganesh Police Constable, Armed Reserve Police, Dindigul District Petitioners Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009

2.The State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Member, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai 600 028

3.J.Krishnakumar S/o .Jaganathan, 124, Nehru Colony, Mahalingapuram Pollachi, Coimbatore District 642 002 Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 04.11.2025 in S.H.R.C. Case No.1969 of 2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr. N.Ponraj For Respondents: Mr. E.Vijay Anand Addl. Government Pleader for R1 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard.

2. Challenge to the order is essentially premised on the submission that the State Human Rights Commission has wrongly recorded a perverse finding of fact that the complainant brought into custody was assaulted, resulting in violation of human rights.

3. We have gone through the detailed order passed by the Human Rights Commission. It is reflected that in support of the complaint that he was assaulted by the police officers while he was in custody, oral and documentary evidence has been adduced before the State Human Rights Commission. While the case of the complainant was that he was assaulted by the police officers after he was taken into custody, the case of the petitioners herein before the State Human Rights Commission was that the complainant sustained injury while escaping from custody.

4. This essentially is an issue of fact. It is an admitted position on record that the complainant sustained injury. Whether this was an injury sustained while he was escaping from custody or it was owing to torture by the police officers has been decided by the State Human Rights Commission after a detailed scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

While one set of evidence led by the petitioners has been disbelieved, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant has been believed. The State Human Rights Commission tilted the balance in favour of the complainant’s version because of presence of injury. If that is the approach of the State Human Rights Commission in arriving at a finding of fact, we are at a complete loss as to how this could be said to be a perverse finding.

There are certain observations commenting upon the legality/illegality of the procedure of arrest. To that extent the comments of the State Human Rights Commission, if we may say so, are mere observations. The issue as to the legality/illegality of arrest could be gone into only by the Court concerned or by the higher Courts dealing with an issue of legality/illegality of arrest.

5. Be that as it may, the finding with regard to the violation of human rights is based on evidence, which cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous.

6. None of the grounds relates to the lack of procedural fairness. Notice was issued and reply was obtained. Both the parties were granted reasonable opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter the State Human Rights Commission recorded the finding.

7. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to co