Madras High Court
K. Thanigaimalai vs The State Human Rights Commission on 31 January, 2023
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: V.M.Velumani, R.Hemalatha
W.P.No.2522 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.P.No.2522 of 2021 &
W.M.P. No.2853 of 2021
1. K. Thanigaimalai
2. A. Balasubramaniam ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State Human Rights Commission
No.143 - P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028.
2. Karthick ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ in the nature of writ of Writ of Certiorari
or any other writ or order or direction, to call for the records pertaining to
the order passed by the 1st respondent vide in S.H.R.C. No.1925 of 2019
dated 10.12.2020 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and
ultravires.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2522 of 2021
For Petitioners : Ms. R. Shase
for M/s. Guruprasad
For R1 : Ms.A. Jayaseeli Stella
R2 : No appearance.
ORDER
( R.HEMALATHA, J.) This petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu in case No. SHRC No.1925 of 2019 dated 10.12.2020.
2. Briefly into the facts of the case:
i. The petitioners are policemen, one Thanigaimalai, a Head Constable and another constable by name A. Balasubramaniam. ii. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, had taken suo moto cognizance of an incident of extortion under threat of arrest by the two policemen attached to Kanathur Police Station on 16.05.2019, at about 22.15 hours.
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021 iii. It is alleged that both the policemen were on patrol duty when they found one Karthick (2nd respondent) with his friend Yashwanth on the Kanathur beach. They enquired with them and frisked them. When they found nothing suspicious, they had reportedly asked the 2nd respondent and his friend Yashwanth to come to the police station with them. It is also alleged that when the said Yashwanth resisted, he was forcibly pushed into the police vehicle and the policemen demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe to be let off. They were threatened and were let off after they arranged to pay Rs.2,000/-. This was reported in the newspaper "Dhinakaran" and the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, took Suo moto cognizance of the news report.
iv. The Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Greater Chennai was instructed to submit a report, who in turn asked the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar to investigate and submit a report on the incident.
v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Neelankarai, submitted a report dated 19.06.2019 in the matter to the Deputy Commissioner Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021 of Police, Adyar, which was forwarded to the State Human Rights Commission. The report states that though no complaint was received from the victim Karthick on the incident, a complaint dated 19.05.2019 was obtained from him and an FIR was registered in Cr. No.179/2019 against the two policemen under Section 385 IPC.
vi. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, after a full fledged inquiry concluded that the allegation was true and that there was violation of human rights and had made the following recommendations:
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the victim Karthick within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order;
(ii) The Government shall recover the said sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) equally from the respondents subsequently as per the rules and regulations; Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021
(iii) The Government shall give suitable direction to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to pass final orders in the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents within a period of one month; and
(iv)The Government shall also give suitable direction to the Station House Officer / Inspector of Police, Kanathur Police Station to file a final report in Cr.No.179/2019 under Section 385 IPC registered against the respondents before the competent court within a period of one month.
3. Aggrieved over the orders dated 10.12.2020, passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Heard Ms. R. Shase, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.A. Jayaseeli Stella, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegation against them was a foisted and imaginary one. According to him the petitioners were on the regular patrol duty on that day i.e. 16.05.2019 and they found the two boys in a tent erected on the Kanathur beach. On checking, they were found to be in possession of cigarettes and a drink which smelt alcohol. Further, it was contended that it was only then they were asked to come to the police station they resisted. However, Yashwanth, who was with Karthick, the complainant, hurled abuses on the policemen and refused to cooperate. It was also argued that the allegation was that the said Yashwanth had paid the amount of Rs.2,000/- while he was not a party in the complaint and was not examined too. The journalist who got a whiff of this incident made a sensational news on the very next day in the news paper he was working for. According to the counsel there was no demand or acceptance of bribe much less any threat to the complainant and his friend. Therefore, they prayed for setting aside the State Human Rights Commission's order.
Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that there was a clear violation of human rights by the policemen. Instead of protecting the complainant and his companion, they threatened and extracted Rs.2,000/- from them. This was totally unbecoming conduct of policemen and with no iota of doubt it was a human rights violation. He contended that the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, was right in its conclusion.
7. Having gone through the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and the entire set of related papers, it is clear that an unsavoury incident took place in the night of 16.05.2019. One Karthick and his friend Yashwanth had gone to the Kanathur beach and remained there when they were confronted by the policemen. The fact that Rs.1,000/- was withdrawn by Yashwanth in ICICI ATM at about 11.40 p.m. the same day lends credence to the theory that a bribe of Rs.2,000/- was paid to the police. There was no necessity for Yashwanth to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,000/- from ICICI ATM at that odd hour except to meet the need to pay the illegal gratification. The relevant Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021 portion of the State Human Rights Commission's order is extracted hereunder.
20. It is to be noted that the police are one of the most important organisations of the Society. The policemen, therefore, happen to be the most visible representatives of the Government. In an hour of need, danger, crises and difficulty, when a citizen does not know what to do and whom to approach the police station and a policeman happen to be the most appropriate and approachable unit and person for him. The police are expected to be the most accessible, interactive and dynamic organisations of any society. Vesting of varied powers in the hands of police, while necessary to perform their duties on the other hand leaves door to misuse and hence infringement of human rights.
21. It is also to be mentioned that the police is the custodian of law and they entrusted with the solemn duty of crime management. They are the duty bound to protect the life, liberty and property of the people. Police stations are opened even in villages for the purpose of preserving peace and to maintain law and order. When the police themselves become law breakers, common man would be in a state of lawlessness. Police force is entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining law and order and to extend helping hands to the people. Law enforcing agency Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2522 of 2021 must first abide by law. Only then, they can expect people to respect law. Police should be role model for others. But as far as this case is concerned, the respondents totally forgot their responsibilities and acted against law.
Therefore, we are fully convinced that there was human rights violation in the instant case and the policemen had acted like local rowdies extorting money from hapless victims.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The orders of State Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C. No.1925 of 2019 dated 10.12.2020, is upheld.
(V.M.V.,J.) (R.H.,J.)
31.01.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2522 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
To
The State Human Rights Commission
No.143 - P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028.
W.P.No.2522 of 2021 &
W.M.P. No.2853 of 2021
31.01.2023
(2/2)
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis