The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), Tamil Nadu, which directed a Sub-Inspector of Police to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation in a custodial torture case involving a woman.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar also expressed strong disapproval of the officer’s conduct. The Court noted the petitioner’s “arrogance” in repeatedly failing to file a counter affidavit before the SHRC despite being granted sufficient opportunities.
“In our considered view, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court, especially while exercising its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench observed.
Background of the Case
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Magitha Anna Christy, who was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at the Guduvancherry Police Station in Kanchipuram district at the time of the alleged incident.
Christy had approached the High Court challenging the SHRC’s order holding her responsible for custodial torture and directing payment of compensation.
Allegations Before the SHRC
The complainant, Thamaraiselvi, alleged that the Sub-Inspector assaulted her using hands and a lathi. She further claimed that cash and valuables belonging to her were forcibly taken.
The SHRC took the complaint on record and issued notice to the officer. Although Christy entered appearance through counsel, she failed to file any reply or counter affidavit despite repeated opportunities.
Due to the absence of any oral or documentary defence, the Commission proceeded to decide the complaint on merits.
Evidence Considered by the Commission
The SHRC relied on medical records issued by the Medical Officer of the Prison Hospital. It also examined photographs showing injuries to the complainant, including swelling of the left hand, injuries to the knees, and injuries to the right leg toe and fingers.
Based on this material, the Commission concluded that the Sub-Inspector had assaulted the complainant.
The SHRC also found that the officer acted in haste on an unverified complaint. It further noted that the woman was sent to prison without being afforded legal aid.
Accordingly, the Commission directed payment of ₹5 lakh as compensation to Thamaraiselvi and recommended initiation of severe disciplinary action against the officer.
High Court’s Observations
Before the High Court, Christy argued that the complaint was filed to extract money from her. She also claimed that the complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaint on receipt of ₹3.5 lakh.
The Court rejected these submissions. It noted that the allegations of assault remained completely uncontroverted. The Bench held that the failure to file a counter affidavit before the SHRC amounted to a tacit admission.
The Court further observed that an officer who chose not to contest proceedings before the Commission could not later challenge the findings on merits.
Petition Dismissed
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s conduct, the High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioner:
Ms. P. Keerthana for M/s Murali Law Firm
Counsel for Respondents:
Mr. J. Baranidharan
Case Title:
Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another
