[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
A.C.Karthikeyan vs State Human Rights Commission Tamil ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
W.P(MD)Nos.22673, 24168, 23338 & 23362 of 2022, 14715 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.16827, 18281, 17405, 17436 of 2022 & 12410 of 2023
W.P(MD)No.22673 of 2022:
A.C.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Registrar (Law),
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Post Box No. 601,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
4.A.Selvaraj ... Respondents
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
2 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in SHRC Case No. 7744 of 2019 dated 01.09.2022 on
the file of Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel,
for R.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthuvelan for R.1
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
for R.2
Mr.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.3
Mr.T.Arul for R.4
W.P(MD)No.24168 of 2022:
R.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Registrar (Law),
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
3 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Post Box No. 601,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
4.A.Selvaraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in SHRC Case No. 7744 of 2019 dated 01.09.2022 on
the file of Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthuvelan for R.1
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
for R.2
Mr.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.3
Mr.T.Arul for R.4
3/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
4 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
W.P(MD)No.23338 of 2022:
M.Stephen Arul Raj ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Human Rights Commission,
Represented by its Registrar (Law),
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai - 28.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
P.B.No.61, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
4.A.Selvaraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in SHRC Case No. 7744 of 2019 dated 01.09.2022 on
the file of Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sailendrababu
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthuvelan for R.1
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
for R.2
4/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
5 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
Mr.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.3
Mr.T.Arul for R.4
W.P(MD)No.23362 of 2022:
Mohan Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Human Rights Commission,
Represented by its Registrar (Law),
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai - 28.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Post Box No. 61,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
4.A.Selvaraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in SHRC Case No. 7744 of 2019 dated 01.09.2022 on
the file of Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
5/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
6 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sailendrababu
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthuvelan for R.1
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
for R.2
Mr.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.3
Mr.T.Arul for R.4
W.P(MD)No.14715 of 2023:
A.Selvaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Registrar (Law),
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai – 28.
(R.1 is deleted from the
cause title vide order of this
Court dated 22.06.2023)
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
6/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
7 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
3.The Director General of Police,
Post Box No. 601,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
4.Rejini ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in SHRC No.7744
of 2019 dated 01.09.2022 and quash the same in so far exonerating the
4th respondent herein and consequently direct the 4th respondent to pay
suitable compensation for the human rights violation inflicted against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arul
For Respondents : Mr.V.Muthuvelan for R.1
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader for R.2
Mr.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for R.3
Mr. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates for R.4
***
7/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
8 W.P.(MD)No.22673 OF 2022 and batch
COMMON ORDER
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Selvaraj, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.14715 of 2023 and fourth
respondent in the other four writ petitions, lodged complaint before the
State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. It was taken on file in
SHRC No.7744 of 2019. The order dated 01.09.2022 disposing of the
said complaint is under challenge in these writ petitions.
2.The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant had civil disputes with his brother A.Vijayan and
his son V.Anand. An agreement was entered into between V.Anand
(complainant's nephew) and the complainant on 04.01.2017 whereby the
complainant agreed to relinquish all his rights with respect to one of the
properties, namely, Anand Theatre, in favour of V.Anand. It was agreed
that V.Anand would pay a sum of 80 lakhs rupees in installments.
Subsequently, another agreement was entered into on 10.04.2017
between A.Vjayan and the complainant settling all the disputes.
However, with regard to a particular property, namely “Anandha Bhavan
Hotel”, located at Marthandam junction, the dispute remained
unresolved. The complainant had inducted a tenant in the said property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
The understanding between the complainant and his brother Vijayan was
that Vijayan could seek possession of the said property only after the
expiry of the lease period on 20.01.2022.
3.In connection with the said issue, Anand had paid a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the complainant. Anand
wanted the complainant to return the said amount. This was the bone of
contention between the complainant and Anand. At this stage, one
Karthikeyan assumed charge as DSP, Thuckalay. The complainant
received oral intimation from the local Police that he should appear
before the said Karthikeyan, DSP for enquiry on 21.05.2019 at around
07.00 p.m. The complainant accordingly appeared before the DSP. The
DSP insisted that the complainant should pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakhs only) to Anand. The complainant was threatened with dire
consequences if he failed to do so. The complainant, however, refused to
submit to the demand of the DSP.
4.On the next day i.e., 22.05.2019, the complainant received a
formal summon to appear before the DSP in Marthandam Police Station
at around 06.00 p.m. Karthikeyan reiterated his earlier threat. Once
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
again the complainant declined to accede. While so, on 30.05.2019 at
around 05.00 p.m, Mohan Kumar, Rejini and Stephen, Police personnel
belonging to the Special Squad of the office of the DSP, entered the
complaint's premises and dragged him. He was forcibly pushed into a
police vehicle. He was also beaten up. Mohan Kumar hit the
complainant against a steel bar inside the vehicle. The complainant was
abused and then taken to Marthandam Police Station. The complainant
was kept in illegal detention for a few hours. He was then taken to and
detained in the premises of Kottikodu Police Station. He was also
blindfolded. Thereafter, Karthikeyan, DSP, Thuckalay came to the spot
and told the complainant that he should arrange to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to
Anand and if he failed to do so, he would be falsely implicated in
criminal cases. The complainant was again beaten up by Karthikeyan.
5.Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the Government
Hospital, Kuzhithurai at about 09.30 a.m, detained there till evening and
then shifted to the Government Hospital, Asaripallam. The complainant
was kept in the ICU and discharged on 08.06.2019. In the meanwhile,
the complainant obtained anticipatory bail even though he was shown as
having been arrested on 31.05.2019 itself. Seeking compensation for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
injuries suffered by him and for taking action against the erring Police
personnel, complaint was filed before the SHRC.
6.Karthikeyan was shown as the first respondent. The other writ
petitioners Mohan Kumar, Rejini and Stephen were shown as the
respondents 2 to 4. The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station
and the Sub Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station were shown
as the respondents 5 and 6. The respondents 2 to 6 filed their counter
affidavit. According to them, based on credible information, Crime No.
198 of 2019 was registered under Section 24(1) of COTPA and Section
77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 against one Anandha Sathya and his
father Sathiyanesan, on the allegation that they were indulging in
transporting, stocking and selling of gutka products. During
investigation, the accused confessed in the presence of independent
witnesses and the involvement of the complainant Selvaraj came to light.
Based on the information furnished by them, a huge quantity of gutka
products was recovered from the godown belonging to the complainant.
Thereupon, the complainant was arrested by the Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station on 31.05.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
7.According to the police, in order to avoid police custody, the
complainant hit his forehead against the steel bar in the Police vehicle
and caused injuries to himself. Following the arrest, when the
complainant was produced for medical examination to obtain Medical
Fitness Certificate, he used his influence and gained admission as an in-
patient. On account of this intervening development, the accused could
not be formally taken into custody. The complainant also obtained
interim anticipatory bail from the Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil on
07.06.2019. The respondents 2 to 4 completely denied all the allegations
made by the complainant in his complaint.
8.The first respondent, Karthikeyan, DSP, Thuckalay reiterated the
stand of the respondents 2 to 6. According to him, the godown belonging
to the complainant was used for storing gutka products. When this came
to the knowledge of the Police, they took action. In order to ensure that
his name and reputation in his locality were not damaged, the
complainant enacted a drama. The DSP also denied that he abused his
position or power to oblige Anand. He claimed that his child and
Anand's child were schoolmates and that except this connection, there
was no other link between himself and the said Anand. The DSP also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
denied all the allegations made against him in the complainant. The
stand of the police is that the lodging of complaint before the Human
Rights Commission was a counter blast to the criminal case registered
against the complainant and intended to repair the damage caused to his
reputation.
9.The complainant examined himself as PW1 and 5 other
witnesses on his side. Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 were marked. On the side of the
respondents, four witnesses were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 were
marked. After considering the rival contentions and materials on record,
the State Human Rights Commission passed the following directions:
“(a) The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai shall pay a
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to
the complainant Mr.Selvaraj, S/o.Late.Tr.A.P.Appavoo
Nadar, residing at Chathanamkuzhi, Nalloor Marthandam,
Kanniyakumari District within a period of Four weeks from
the date of receipt of this order.
(b) After making such payment the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai may recover a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) from the 1st respondent Mr.Karthikeyan; and a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each from the
2nd Respondent Mr.Mohankumar, 4th Respondent Mr.Stephen
and 5th Respondent Mr.Senthilkumar, as per rules.”
Challenging the same, these writ petitions have been filed.
10.It is conceded by the writ petitioners that the complainant is an
affluent and very well known person in the locality. He was implicated
in Crime No.198 of 2019 registered under Section 24(1) of COTPA and
Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Principal District and
Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil discharged the
complainant from the said criminal case vide order dated 11.11.2024 in
Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2023. Though the discharge order was passed
subsequently, it can be taken note of while testing the validity of the
order passed by the Human Rights Commission earlier (vide Ram
Chandra Prasath Singh v. Sharad Yadhav (Civil Appeal No.2004 of
2020 dated 19 .03.2020). A reading of the aforesaid discharge order and
a perusal of the materials on record leads us also to the conclusion that
the complainant was falsely implicated in the said criminal case. It was
in connection with that criminal case, the police personnel attached to
Marthandam police station arrested the complainant and took him to the
Kottikode police station. Admittedly, in the process, the complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
suffered head injuries. The police have put forth an improbable version
that the complainant hit himself against the steel-bar in the vehicle and
the injuries are self-inflicted. The Commission unequivocally rejected
the said defence. The complainant is a senior citizen aged about 63 years.
We can invoke the rule of commonsense and easily conclude that the
story that the complainant hit himself and that is how the head injuries
were caused is fantastic. He was taken to hospital and that is how, he
escaped being remanded.
11.Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
defines “Human Rights” as follows:
“2(d) “Human Rights” means the rights relating
to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual
guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the
International Covenants and enforceable by courts in
India”
Implication in a criminal case and being taken in a police vehicle is
definitely an infraction of one's dignity. The complainant's liberty was
also curtailed. On account of police assault, he had suffered injuries.
These are undoubtedly violative of the complainant's human rights. That
the complainant was a victim of police assault is borne out by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Accident Register (Ex. P8), Wound certificate (Ex.P9) and Discharge
Summary (Ex. P10).
12.The question that calls for consideration is whether the
Commission was justified in fastening liability on Karthikeyan and three
others. Karthikeyan was the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of
Police then. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
contended that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not a party to
the human rights violation said to have been committed on the
complainant. It is true that Karthikeyan did not direct the registration of
the FIR. It is true that he did not personally oversee or cause arrest of the
complainant. Even though the complainant had alleged that Karthikeyan
had also assaulted him, the evidence on that score is not sufficiently
strong. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel pressed for exonerating
Karthikeyan from liability.
13.We are not persuaded by the said submission. As already
mentioned, the complainant is a person of standing. We find it difficult to
believe that the local police would have implicated and arrested the
complainant on the strength of the confession obtained from the main
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
accused without clearance from the DSP. The complainant was having a
civil dispute with his nephew / V.Anand. Anand was demanding that the
complainant should re-pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Anand and
Karthikeyan were known to each other. This is admitted. The give-away
lies in the summon issued to the complainant on 22.05.2019 and the
direct involvement of the members of the Special Squad attached to the
officer of the DSP. The complainant had alleged that on 22.05.2019, he
was asked to appear before Karthikeyan on 23.05.2019 and that
Karthikeyan during said interaction pressed the complainant to pay a sum
of Rs.20,00,000/- to Anand. Since the complainant refused to agree, he
was served with a written summon from the local police station. The
summon reads that Selvaraj should appear before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police on 23.05.2019. Unless the Deputy
Superintendent of Police had directed, the local police would not have
issued such a summon (Ex.P7). There was no occasion whatsoever for
the Deputy Superintendent of Police to call upon Selvaraj to appear
before him for enquiry. Admittedly, no criminal case was pending
against the complainant then. There was absolutely no justification or
warrant for summoning the complainant for enquiry on 23.05.2019. We
are not dealing with a criminal case. Therefore, the standard of proof can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
only be preponderance of probabilities. We are satisfied that the
complainant was summoned to appear before Karthikeyan only in
connection with the civil dispute pending between the complainant and
his nephew / Anand.
14.The police driver attached to the office of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police was one of the respondents in the complaint
filed by Selvaraj before the Human Rights Commission. His daily dairy
was marked as Ex.R10. In the entry, it has been stated that on
30.05.2019, the Deputy Superintendent of Police / Karthikeyan visited
Kotticode Police Station twice. In his cross-examination, Karthikeyan
admitted that on the said date, he visited Kotticode Police Station at
05.30 pm and 10.00 pm. The specific case of the complainant is that he
was kept in Kotticode police station from 30.05.2019 to 31.05.2019 till
06.30 am. The diary extracts of Rejini dated 30.05.2019 reads that he
went for gutka raid along with Karthikeyan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has directed that the CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations to
check human rights abuse and has time and again emphasised that they
should be functional (Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020) 7
SCC 397 and In Re Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations (Suo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7/2025). Though it is admitted by
Karthikeyan that in the station premises of Kotticode CCTV cameras
have been installed, the footages were not produced. Non-production of
the footage contemporaneously taken warrants drawl of adverse
interference against the police.
15.Crime No.196 was registered on the file of Marthandam Police
Station under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code by Senthilkumar,
Inspector of Police. The name of the complainant is also figuring in
Column No.7 of the said FIR. In Paragraph No.11 of the proof of
affidavit filed by Karthikeyan before State Human Rights Commission,
he had stated that since the issue between the complainant / Selvaraj and
Anand was beyond his limits, he referred the matter to the Executive
Magistrate for taking action under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Thus,
Karthikeyan had admitted his involvement in the civil dispute between
the complainant and Anand. There was no occasion for Karthikeyan to
involve himself in the matter at all. There was neither any court order
nor order from the higher authority directing Karthikeyan to look into
issue between Selvaraj and Anand. These facts probalize the case of the
complainant that on account of his friendship with Anand, Karthikeyan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
chose to take sides and interfere. We are of the view that only on account
of instructions given by Karthikeyan, the police personnel attached to
Marthandam police station implicated the complainant / Selvaraj in the
criminal case and also detained him and caused him injuries. Admittedly,
Mohanraj and Stephen barged into the shop of the complainant and
dragged him to the police station. Both of them were members of the
special squad attached to the DSP office, Thuckalay. Selvaraj was pushed
into a police vehicle which was driven by Rejini who was again attached
to the office of the DSP, Thuckalay. More than the Marthandam Police
Station Personnel, the members of the special squad of the DSP took
greater involvement in dealing with Selvaraj in connection with the gutka
case. But for the direct instruction from Karthikeyan, the police
personnel working under his immediate command would not have
involved themselves in the gutka case. Therefore, the State Human
Rights Commission was right in fastening liability on Karthikeyan and
also directing him to pay compensation to the complainant / Selvaraj.
16.The complainant Selvaraj has made specific allegations against
Mohankumar as well as Stephen Arul Raj, the members of the special
squad. Mohankumar as well as Stephen Arul Raj had roughed up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Selvaraj. Specific overt acts have been attributed to them. The case of
the complainant is duly supported by evidence of two practicing lawyers
namely, Thangamani and Aruldhas (examined as P.W.5 and P.W.6
respectively). Selvaraj specifically alleged that he was taken to
Kotticode police station after his arrest. Both the lawyers in their
affidavit stated that they saw Karthikeyan in the station premises. When
the DSP himself was present in the Police Station, it is reasonable to
presume that the members of his squad, namely, Mohan Kumar and
Stephen Arul Raj joined him.
17.On the other hand, Rejini appears to have acted only as a driver
and his role did not extend beyond. Rejini examined himself before the
Commission. He was also subjected to cross-examination. After
examining the evidence against him, the Commission exonerated him.
The order exonerating Rejini is put to challenge. The approach to be
adopted in such cases has to be delineated. In an appeal against acquittal,
where two views are possible, and the trial court on appreciation of
evidence on record, has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court
should not interfere with the same (vide Harljan Bhala Teja v. State of
Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665). The appellate court will interfere only if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on
record or it is perverse. In revision against acquittal, interference is
possible only when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a
manifest error on point of law and there has been flagrant miscarriage of
justice (vide Amar Chand v. Shanti Bose (1973) 4 SCC 10). When we
are examining the correctness of the order passed by the Commission, we
are not exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction. We are exercising
the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. There are varying standards of judicial review. Certain orders are
subjected to heightened scrutiny. The proceeding impugned in writ
jurisdiction may be subjected to what is colloquially called “hard look”.
Sometimes a kid glove approach is adopted. The context determines the
contours of judicial review. If the order is by the executive, we may
probe the matter deeply. If the order had already passed muster at the
hands of an expert body, our attitude may be one of restraint. Human
Rights Commission is a specially constituted statutory body. When such
a body had chosen to give clean chit to someone accused of human rights
violation, unless we are satisfied that the exoneration is vitiated by a
serious irregularity, we will not be justified in dislodging its conclusions.
It is in this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition filed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Thiru.Selvaraj questioning the exoneration of Rejini.
18.Thiru.Senthilkumar, the Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police
Station registered the gutka case. It was he who arrested the main
accused and based on their confession, implicated Selvaraj.
Senthilkumar caused the arrest of Selvaraj. D.K.Basu guidelines were
not followed. When Selvaraj was implicated in connection with a case
registered by Marthandam Police, he could not have been taken to
Kotticode Police Station. As already mentioned, Selvaraj received
summon from Marthandam Police directing him to appear before the
DSP even though there was no cause of action whatsoever. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260
observed that the existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the
justification for its exercise is another. But for his admission in hospital,
Selvaraj would have been sent to jail. Senthilkumar cannot claim to be
innocent. He had acted as a pawn at the hands of the DSP Karthikeyan.
The Commission rightly fastened liability on him also.
19.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the police contended
that when the subject matter is pending before the criminal court, the bar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
set out under Regulation 9(g) of the State Human Right Commission,
Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997 would get attracted. The said
regulation reads as follows : -
“9.Complaint not ordinarily entertainable – The
Commission may dismiss in limini complaints of the following
nature:-
(g) Matter is sub judice before a Court or tribunal”
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench
rendered in WP(MD)Nos.17370 and 17376 of 2020, dated 05.07.2022
(M.Chelladurai and another Vs. The Registrar, State Human Rights
Commission, Chennai and others) in support of the above contention.
20.The doctrine of sub-judice envisages that when the
jurisdictional Court is seized of the matter, there cannot be any parallel
enquiry by any other forum. This principle finds expression in
Regulation 9(g) of the State Human Right Commission, Tamil Nadu
(Procedure) Regulation, 1997. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the writ petitioners submitted that in view of this statutory bar, the
Human Rights Commission could not have entertained the complaint at
all. We are however of the view that merely because the subject matter
before the Court and the Commission overlap, there cannot be an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
absolute bar for the Commission to take cognizance of the complaint.
The Commission is very much having a discretion in such cases. This is
evident from the employment of the expression “may”. Of course, the
manner in which the discretion is exercised is amenable to judicial
review. But that there is a lee-way is beyond doubt. Regulation No.9 has
a heading and it employes the expression “ordinarily”. This expression
was interpreted by the Five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 1346 (Kailash Chandra v.
Union of India) as meaning “in the large majority of cases but not
invariably”. These two expressions ie., “ordinarily” and “may” have to
be read together. Only if the subject matter before the Human Rights
Commission and the subject matter before the Court are one and the
same, the Commission may have to refrain from entertaining the
complaint. Even if that be the case, if the facts prima facie indicate
egregious violation of one's human rights, the Commission cannot turn a
blind eye. It can very well entertain the complaint. But it has to be
mindful of the sub judice principle while dealing with the complaint and
giving its recommendations. Its findings cannot operate to undermine the
prosecution case before the criminal Court. There is a story in
Mahabharata. Arjuna and others were engaged in target practice. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Arjuna was asked what he saw, he replied that he saw the target alone to
its minutest degree. Such precisional approach is called for in such
cases. The Human Rights Commission should focus on the aspect of
breach of human rights alone. It should not render any finding on the
nature of investigation. It should not go into micro details of
investigation such as arrest, confession etc., The Commission may have
to do a tight rope walking. It can thus steer clear of the bar found in
Regulation 9(g). It is evident from a reading of Para 24 of the impugned
order that the SHRC was aware of its limitations and did not venture into
aspects involving criminal liability.
21.We can view from another perspective also. The Commission
has been entrusted with certain statutory functions by the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 10(2) of the Act empowers the
Commission to regulate its own procedures. Regulation 9(g) is a part of
the regulations issued under the aforesaid sections. When statute confers
a certain jurisdiction on the Human Rights Commission, it implies that
the Commission is under a mandate to intervene when the facts
disclosing breach of human rights come to its notice. The procedural
regulations framed under Section 10(2) of the Act cannot come in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
way of the Commission from exercising its statutory functions. The
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Sankar Chatterjee v. State of Bengal
(2000) 1 Cal LJ 136 held that since no provision of the Human Rights
Act limits the power of the Commission to entertain and investigate a
complaint relating to the matter which is sub-judice, Regulation 7(2)(a)
(pari materia to Regulation 9(g) of the State Human Right Commission,
Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulation, 1997) certainly cannot take away
the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain and investigate a
complaint even in a case where the matter is sub-judice. It was further
held that these Regulations were not even delegated legislations but are
really in the nature of administrative instruction issued by the said
Commission regulating its own procedure under Section 10(2) of the Act.
But when the Commission entertains any complaint that is sub-judice,
reason should be recorded for deviating from the normal procedure. We
clarify that we are in agreement with the Calcutta view with a caveat that
the sub-judice principle must be kept in view and the approach in such
cases must be as indicated in this judgment.
22.The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners points out
that the complainant having filed a private complaint before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Magistrate Court, could not have maintained a parallel complaint before
the Human Rights Commission. This submission does not meet our
approval. This is not a case of riding two horses at the same time. One
cannot pursue twin remedies to achieve a single object. But if law
permits the aggrieved individual to avail more than one remedy, nothing
stops him from pursuing both. If a person has been defamed, he can file
a suit for damages. He can also initiate criminal prosecution. If an
employee commits misappropriation, the employer can prosecute him
before the criminal Court as well as initiate departmental proceedings.
Merely because a victim of human rights violation has resorted to
criminal prosecution, he cannot be disabled from approaching the Human
Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission can award
compensation and recommend disciplinary action against the erring
officials. On the other hand, the Criminal Court can hand out
punishment. The rule of sub-judice will not apply in such cases because
the statutes concerned confer such remedies. When one is availing such
a statutory remedy, the rule of sub-judice will not come in the way. The
rule of sub-judice will apply when the complainant before the
Commission is accused in the criminal case and not when the same
individual holds the position of petitioner before the Court as well as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
Commission. As already clarified even when the complainant before the
Commission is an accused in the criminal case, the complaint can be
entertained when gross human rights violation is evident ex-facie ; even
in such cases, the eventual findings of the Commission cannot cast any
cloud on the prosecution's case before the criminal court. If this laxman
rekha is not kept in view, while the act of taking cognizance may not be
faulted, the report may be set aside. We can conceive of a situation
when the police version projected before the criminal Court is at total
variance with what is projected by the accused in the criminal Court /
complainant before the Commission. Only if we come to the conclusion
that the findings of the Commission would undermine the prosecution
case in the criminal Court, then alone Regulation 9(g) of State Human
Right Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulation, 1997 will be
attracted and not otherwise.
23.The case before the criminal Court was whether the
complainant / Selvaraj was guilty of offences under Sections 24(1) of
COTPA, 2003 and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The case
before the Commission was whether the human rights of Selvaraj were
infringed. The subject matter before the Commission and the case before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
the criminal Court clearly did not overlap. Not only that, Selvaraj had
subsequently been discharged from the criminal case. Considering the
facts and circumstances mentioned above, we hold that that statutory bar
is not at all attracted and the Commission was justified in proceeding
with the complaint lodged by Selvaraj.
24.We confirm the impugned order passed by State Human Rights
Commission. We are also of the view that the State Human Rights
Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint against Rejini and
Henson Paulraj.
25.For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S, J.) & (R.K.M, J.)
27.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
To
1.State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Registrar (Law),
No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Greenways Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Post Box No. 601,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)Nos.22673, 24168, 23338
& 23362 of 2022, 14715 of 2023
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/02/2026 11:58:10 am )
