As Madras High Court draws ‘Laxman rekha’ for human rights cases, why police must pay Rs 6 lakh to TN businessman

“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 cognisance may not be faulted, the report may be set aside,” the court said on February 27.

The court emphasised that while human rights bodies can examine violations arising out of police action, they must maintain a Laxman rekha so that their findings do not interfere with criminal proceedings before courts.

‘Laxman rekha’ between courts, human rights bodies

• Explaining the limits of the human rights commission’s jurisdiction, the bench observed that even when a criminal case is pending before a court, the commission may still inquire into allegations of human rights violations.
• However, the commission must focus only on the issue of breach of human rights and not delve into the details of the criminal investigation, the court cautioned while discussing the principle of sub-judice and the commission’s powers.
• The judges clarified that the commission’s findings should not undermine the prosecution’s case before the criminal court.
• 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.

Justices G R Swaminathan and R Kalaimathi issued the order on February 27.

Writ pleas dismissed

• Holding that the SHRC had acted within its jurisdiction, the bench dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the police officials and confirmed the Commission’s order awarding compensation.
• “The State Human Rights Commission was right in fastening liability,” the court concluded.

Background of dispute

• The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Selvaraj, a businessman from Kanniyakumari district, before the SHRC.
• According to the complainant, he had a civil property dispute with his brother and nephew regarding certain commercial properties, including the “Anandha Bhavan Hotel” at Marthandam.
• The dispute intensified over the demand that he return Rs 20 lakh allegedly paid by his nephew V Anand, which Selvaraj refused.
• Selvaraj alleged that in May 2019, then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) A C Karthikeyan summoned him and pressured him to repay the amount.
• When he declined, police personnel allegedly dragged him from his premises on May 30, 2019, assaulted him and detained him illegally, before taking him to police stations and hospitals.
• He was later hospitalised with head injuries and discharged on June 8, 2019.

Police version rejected

• The police authorities denied the allegations and claimed that Selvaraj had been arrested in connection with a case registered in 2019 involving the illegal storage and sale of gutka products.
• They contended that his injuries were self-inflicted when he hit his head against a steel bar inside a police vehicle to avoid custody.
• However, the human rights commission rejected this explanation.
• The high court also found the police version “improbable”, noting that Selvaraj, a senior citizen, had suffered injuries consistent with assault.
• Medical records, including the accident register, wound certificate and discharge summary, corroborated his claim that he had sustained injuries during police custody.

SHRC order and relief

• On September 1, 2022, the SHRC directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs 6 lakh compensation to Selvaraj.
• The commission further permitted the government to recover Rs 3 lakh from DSP Karthikeyan, and Rs 1 lakh each from three police personnel involved in the incident.
• The order was challenged by the police officials before the high court.

Court finds police responsible

• After examining the evidence, the bench concluded that Selvaraj had indeed suffered human rights violations at the hands of police personnel.
• The court observed that the police had implicated him in a criminal case and detained him in circumstances that violated his dignity, liberty and personal safety, which are protected under the Constitution.
• The judges also noted that CCTV footage from the police station was not produced, which warranted an adverse inference against the police.

Discharge in criminal case noted

• The court further took note that Selvaraj was subsequently discharged from the criminal case on November 11, 2024, by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Nagercoil.
• This development reinforced the conclusion that the criminal case had been wrongly pursued against him.