A.R.Rayappan Kumar vs The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
A.R.Rayappan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar, State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P(MD) No.2443 of 2023|W.M.P.(MD)No.2214 of 2023|SHRC Case Nos.6589 of 2015 and 6590 of 2015

Important Points

Reasons quashing SHRC order against police equally apply to co-respondent petitioner.

Subject

Human Rights - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Constitution of India: S.226

Headnote

The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the State Human Rights Commission in complaints alleging human rights violations by police personnel, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Essential facts involved the petitioner as third respondent in SHRC proceedings, with police officials as co-respondents. The court found that prior Division Bench order quashing the SHRC order for police personnel applied equally, correcting the erroneous impression that petitioner had not challenged it. Key issue framed: Whether reasons for quashing SHRC order against police personnel extended to petitioner. Ratio decidendi: Reasons impelling quashal of SHRC order against police equally applicable to petitioner, as he challenged first though petitions not clubbed (para 3). Writ petition allowed; impugned SHRC order quashed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Veerakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

Table of Content
1. background of shrc complaint and prior proceedings. (Para 2)
2. reasons for quashing apply equally; order quashed. (Para 3)

The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu in SHRC Case Nos. 6589 of 2015 and 6590 of 2015.

2. It is seen that the petitioner herein figured as the third respondent in the complaint filed before the Human Rights Commission. The Respondents 1 and 2 were the Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police respectively of Annavasal Police Station in Pudukkottai District. All the three respondents in the complaint before the Human Rights Commission had challenged the impugned order. Unfortunately, this writ petition was not clubbed with W.P.(MD)No.4587 of 2023 filed by the police personnel. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court vide order dated 02.12.2024 had set aside the impugned order passed by the Human Rights Commission. While allowing the writ petition filed by the police personnel, the Division Bench was under the erroneous impression that this petitioner had not challenged the order of the Human Rights Commission and that is why, an observation was made that the fine imposed on the petitioner herein can be collected from him since he had not challenged the order of the Human Rights Commission. In fact, it was the petitioner who had challenged the impugned order first and the police personnel had only subsequently challenged the Human Rights Commission's order.

3. We had carefully gone through the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. We are of the view that the reasons that impelled this court to quash the Human Rights Commission's order at the instance of the police personnel can equally be applied in the case of the petitioner also. Though the complainant before the Human Rights Commission had entered appearance through counsel, there is no representation on his behalf. The impugned order stands quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.