IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.3060 of 2026 Sangeetha R .. Petitioner -vs-

1. The State, Rep. By The Inspector of Police (L&O), Mr.Thompson Xavier, R-5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Virugambakkam, Chennai-92.

2. State Human Rights Commission, Tamilnadu, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai 600 028. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 15.12.2025 made in case No.4732/22/13/2023/OC passed by 2^nd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devanthiran For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side), for R-1 : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Govt. Advocate for R-2 * * * * *

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard.

2. The order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Commission is under challenge on the ground that the order of the Commission does not assign any reason as to why the complaint is not entertainable under law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the learned Commission has referred to Regulation 9(j) of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997, the said clause is in the nature of residuary clause and does not refer to any specific reason.

4. We have gone through the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission. The order reads as under:

“Complaint not entertainable as the subject matter falls outside the purview of this Commission as per Regulation 9(j) of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure), Regulations, 1997. The complaint is closed.”

5. What is reflected from the order is that the Commission has rejected the complaint as not entertainable as the subject matter falls outside the purview of the Commission as per Regulation 9(j) of the Regulations.

5.1. Clause 9(j) is in the nature of residuary clause and it does not refer to any specific subject.

5.2. As to why the complaint is not entertainable is not recorded in the order. To our mind, the order is not speaking.

6. In that view of the matter, only on this ground, we are inclined to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Commission for consideration and passing appropriate orders, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

10.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra To

1. The Inspector of Police (L&O), Mr.Thompson Xavier, R-5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Virugambakkam, Chennai-92.

2. State Human Rights Commission, Tamilnadu, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai 600 028.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(sra)

10.02.2026