Madras High Court: In the petitions filed by the police officials challenging the orders passed by the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and the subsequent government order, regarding payment of compensation to the complainant for his human rights violation, the Division Bench of M. Jothiraman, J.* and Nisha Banu J., stated that the police officials, while enforcing the law, have the duty to uphold the dignity, rights, and liberties of individuals. Therefore, the Court found no error in the impugned orders and accordingly, upheld Rs. 1 lakhs compensation awarded to the complainant for custodial torture by the police officials.
Background
The complainant alleged that on 20-12-2013, he was taken to Police Station at around 3 a.m., where he was unlawfully detained, stripped, and allegedly subjected to inhuman treatment. Later that morning, Inspector of Police demanded Rs. 4 lakhs from the complainant, for the settlement money and took all his of gold jewellery worth lakhs. The complainant remained in illegal custody until 22-12-2013, during which time Sub Inspector of Police caught hold and dragged complainant and hit him on his head. It was alleged that he also took complainant to a bridge and tortured him there. The complainant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 22-12-2013, where he narrated all the torture meted out by him.
A written complaint was submitted, and an application under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for medical examination was denied. Thereafter, the complainant alleged that instead of being taken directly to prison, he was stopped at a dark place near a police station and asked to get down from the vehicle and was assaulted. Subsequently, complainant approached the State Human Rights Commission and filed multiple complaints, including a writ petition seeking medical care and the return of his seized jewellery.
Further, SHRC held the police officials accountable for human rights violations and ordered- (i) the government of Tamil Nadu to pay a for compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant and (ii) the government shall recover the said amount from both Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police, as per the rules and regulations. Accordingly, the government accorded sanction for the sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards payment of compensation to the complainant.
Further, the police officials challenged the SHRC order and the subsequent government order, by filing present writ petitions. It was stated that the impugned order alleging violation of human rights, was without any basis. Further, any discussion regarding the factor of fixing the monetary compensation was unsustainable under law, and consequently an issuance of Government order was also liable to be set aside.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court examined the remand records, complaint documents, and oral and documentary evidence and noted that the complainant explicitly reported custodial torture before the Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand. The Court held that even though there was no visible physical injury, the mental torture inflicted on complainant constituted a clear violation of human rights.
The Court relied on Abdul Sathar v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16611, wherein it was held that the SHRC has been assigned a constitutional role with statutory backing and its recommendations are not liable to be ignored. The Court stated that if there is any act done by the officials of the Government in violation of the Human Rights, then the Government is either directly or vicariously liable for the act done by the officials. The Court further held that the police officials, while upholding human rights, have critical role in maintaining law and order. Their duties including protecting citizens, upholding the laws, and maintaining tranquillity. The police officials must respect human dignity, avoid discrimination and protect vulnerable groups. The police officials must adhere to human rights standing orders to build trust, prevent abuse and promote accountability. By upholding human rights, police officials shall effectively perform their duties, while respecting citizen’s fundamental rights and dignity
The Court stated that the delay in filing the writ petitions was fatal and that no error was found in the orders passed by the SHRC or the subsequent government action. Hence, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the award of compensation to the complainant.
[D. Babu Rajendra Bose v. S. Mani, WP.Nos.4569 of 2023 & 17866 of 2024, decided on 12-6-2025]
*Order by- Justice M. Jothiraman
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: M. Rajasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T.C. Gopalakrishnan, M. Venkateshwaran, M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
