Madras High Court Upholds ₹1 Lakh Compensation for Custodial Torture Victim

lakshmi180592
Jun 27
2 min read

Court Stands by Human Rights Commission's Decision:

The Madras High Court has upheld an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) that directed a compensation of ₹1,00,000 to a man who was allegedly tortured by police officers while in custody.

A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the appeals filed by two police officials who challenged the SHRC’s decision.

The Court’s Strong Message on Human Rights:

While delivering the judgment, the Court emphasized the critical role of police in society. The judges stated:

“Police officials have the duty to: Protect citizens Uphold the laws Maintain peace in society In doing so, they must also respect human dignity, avoid discrimination, and protect vulnerable groups.”

The Court added that police must strictly follow human rights standing orders to prevent misuse of power and to build public trust.

What Was the Case About?

The case goes back to December 20, 2013, when a man named Rajnikanth was picked up by police at 3 AM. According to his complaint:

He was illegally detained, stripped, and beaten in custody.
After being formally remanded, the officers allegedly took him to a secluded area near Puzhal Police Station and assaulted him again.

Rajnikanth approached the State Human Rights Commission, which found the actions of the Inspector and Sub-Inspector to be inhumane and unlawful, violating his personal liberty and dignity.

SHRC’s Decision and Compensation:

The SHRC directed the officers to pay ₹1 lakh to Rajnikanth as compensation. The State Government accepted the SHRC’s recommendation and issued an official sanction order for the payment.

Police Officers Challenge the Order:

The police officials, however, approached the Madras High Court, arguing that:

The SHRC wrongly concluded there was a violation of human rights.
Rajnikanth was accused in a cheating case under Section 420 IPC.
The NHRC guidelines were not violated.
The compensation amount was arbitrary and decided without proper discussion.

State Government’s Stand:

The government lawyer defended the SHRC’s order, stating:

The SHRC’s recommendations are binding and can be enforced in law.
Once the State accepts the recommendation, it becomes a legal obligation.
The government has the power to recover the compensation from the guilty officials later.

Final Verdict by the Madras High Court:

The High Court ruled:

“The SHRC is a constitutional body with statutory powers. Its recommendations cannot be ignored once accepted by the government.”

It also noted that:

The government did not challenge the SHRC’s order.
The act of torture by police officials is a clear violation of human rights.
The State is vicariously liable for the actions of its officials.

Hence, the Court dismissed the police officers’ petitions and upheld the SHRC’s recommendation and the compensation order.

Conclusion:

This case sends a clear message that:

Custodial torture has no place in a democratic society.Courts will not tolerate human rights violations, and police officers must be held accountable for misconduct.