“The police officials must adhere to human rights standing orders to build trust, prevent abuse and promote accountability.” – HC
In a significant judgment concerning allegations of custodial torture and abuse of power, the Madras High Court engaged with the extent of the State’s vicarious liability for police misconduct and the binding nature of recommendations made by Human Rights Commissions. At the heart of the case was whether a State Government, acting on the Tamil Nadu SHRC’s findings, could enforce compensation against erring police officials accused of stripping, torturing, and extorting a man falsely implicated in a cheating case. Read on to explore how the Court addressed questions of procedural delay, evidentiary standards, and the enforceability of human rights protections in custodial settings.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Rajinikanth before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in 2013, alleging police brutality after being falsely implicated in a cheating case. He claimed that he was illegally detained, stripped, and tortured by police officials, including Inspector Babu Rajendra Bose and Sub-Inspector Mani. He further alleged that Bose demanded Rs. 4 lakhs and seized his gold jewellery. Despite reporting the abuse to the Magistrate, his request for medical care under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was denied. The SHRC, after inquiry, found the officers guilty of violating his rights and recommended Rs. 1,00,000 in compensation, recoverable from the officials. The Tamil Nadu Government accepted the recommendation. Aggrieved, the Petitioner challenged the SHRC and Government’s Order in the Madras High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that the SHRC’s finding of human rights violations was baseless and unsupported by evidence. They argued that the Commission failed to consider that Rajinikanth was properly charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), with the charge sheet taken on record, and erroneously treated the complaint by Siva Kumar as a mere civil dispute. Additionally, the SHRC did not explain how any norms of the National Human Rights Commission were violated, making its order legally unsustainable. The petitioners further asserted that the compensation amount was fixed arbitrarily, without any legal reasoning or discussion, and therefore, the resultant Government Order should be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that the SHRC’s recommendation under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, is binding and enforceable, empowering the Commission to award compensation for human rights violations, recoverable from the State and subsequently from the responsible officers. The Government, being vicariously liable for the acts of its employees, is obligated to pay such compensation, as upheld by the Full Bench in Abdul Sattar v. Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department (2021). The SHRC’s inquiry, based on oral and documentary evidence, clearly established that Rajinikanth was subjected to humiliation and mental torture by Babu Rajendra Bose and Mani, thereby justifying the compensation order.
Observations of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice M. Jothiraman observed, while emphasizing the role of police officials in upholding human rights, that “This Court is of the view that the police officials have a critical role in maintaining the law and order, while upholding human rights. Their duties include i) protecting citizens ii) upholding the laws and iii) maintaining tranquility. 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 noted that Rajinikanth’s complaint to the SHRC was supported by substantial evidence, including his testimony and 25 documents, which detailed his detention, coercion to remove clothes, and assault by the petitioners. The Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce credible evidence, such as a valid medical certificate, to counter Rajinikanth’s claims of mistreatment. The Judicial Magistrate’s remand report recorded Rajinikanth’s complaints of police assault, though no visible injuries were noted, lending credence to his allegations of mental torture.
The Bench highlighted the legal framework under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, citing Sections 12 and 13, which empower the SHRC to inquire into human rights violations and exercise powers akin to a civil court. The Court, while heavily relying on the Full Bench decision in Abdul Sattar v. Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department (2021), reiterated that “The recommendation of the Commission made under Section 18 of the Act, is binding on the Government or Authority. The Government is under a legal obligation to forward its comments on the Report including the action taken or proposed to be taken to the Commission in terms of sub-clause (e) of Section 18. Therefore, the recommendation of the H.R. Commission under Section 18 is an adjudicatory order which is legally and immediately enforceable.”
The Court further noted that the petitioners did not challenge the SHRC’s order promptly in 2018 and only approached the Court in 2023 and 2024, after the Government accepted the SHRC’s recommendation in 2022, indicating a delay that weakened their case. The absence of a challenge by the Government to the SHRC’s recommendations under Section 18(e) further solidified their enforceability. The Court concluded that the SHRC’s findings of mental torture and violation of Rajinikanth’s rights were well-founded.-
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no merit in their challenge to the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and the Government’s Order. The Court upheld the SHRC’s recommendation to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to Rajinikanth for human rights violations, with the amount to be recovered from the petitioners.
Case Title: D.Babu Rajendra Bose Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commissioner and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.Nos.4569 of 2023
Coram: Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice M. Jothiraman
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. M.Rajasekar
Advocate for Respondent: SGP M. Venkateshwaran, APP M. Babu Muthu Meeran, and Advocate T.C. Gopalakrishnan
Read Order @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
