Dismissed

V.Ponnambalam, v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC1 Mar 2013WP/5022/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the State Human Rights Commission's order awarding compensation for the illegal detention of an old woman. The Court upheld the order based on the petitioner's admission regarding the detention hours and failure to produce a lady constable.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed in limine; No costs.

V.Ponnambalam, Vs the Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 1.3.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.R.K.AGRAWAL, Acting Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr.Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.5022 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
V.PONNAMBALAM ... Petitioner
Vs
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
FORT ST. GEORGE
CHENNAI-600 009.
2 THE REGISTRAR
THE STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION
GREENWAYS ROAD
CHENNAI-600 028.
3 A.PERIYASAMY ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorari calling for the records relating to the recommendation
made in SHRC Case No.1460 of 2004/C2, dated 18.01.2013 on the file
of the second Respondent and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.P.G.Santhoshkumar For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms.A.Sri Jayanthi, Spl.G.P.

¶7

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the second respondent in SHRC Case No.1460 of 2004/C2, ordering a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Irulayee, payable by the petitioner, for violation of human rights caused to the deceased Irulayee.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

The case of the complainant-third respondent herein is that he is the son-in-law of one Irulayee, who was a divorced wife of one Alagar and he contracted a second marriage, in which one Malaikannu was born to him. The said Malaikannu allegedly distilled illicit arrack and Sivagangai PEW Police came in search of the said Malaikannu and in that process, instead of searching the said Malaikannu in his house, the police team headed by the petitioner, who was then working as Sub-Inspector, came to the residence of the third respondent-complainant at about 4.00 a.m., on 20.2.2004. The third respondent-complainant and his wife had been to their field for irrigation and the police team headed by the petitioner enquired the mother-in-law of the complainant, namely Irulayee regarding the whereabouts of the said Malaikannu. Not satisfied with the reply of Irulayee, she was forcibly dragged out of her house to the Police Station at about 4.00 a.m. on 20.2.2004 and she was kept in custody in the Police Station upto 10.00/11.00 a.m. On the same day at about 3.45 p.m., the complainant's mother-in-law Irulayee committed suicide by consuming poison.

¶10

The third respondent preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission with a specific plea that the said police had taken the old woman, i.e., the deceased Irulayee on 20.2.2004 at 4.00 a.m. to the Police Station and the same was not denied by the writ petitioner in the counter affidavit filed before the State Human Rights Commission.

¶11

The State Human Rights Commission, based on the averments made in the complaint, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner took the said Irulayee at 4.00 a.m. to the Police Station on 20.2.2004, i.e., during odd hours and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/as compensation to the legal heirs of the said deceased Irulayee in equal proportion, with further direction to the Department to recover the said amount of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph 4 petitioner admitted as follows:

¶13

"I state that while I was in charge in Sivagangai Prohibition Enforcement Wing as a SubInspector of Police, on 20.2.2004 at about 03.00 a.m, I and my subordinates were in rounds regarding our duty, at that time, I received an information that one Malaikannu, who is an habitual illicit distiller is in the 3^rd respondent's house and hence I went to arrest him in their home at about 04.00 a.m. The said Malaikannu is none other than the 3^rd respondent's son-in-law. When I asked the said Malaikannu to come out of the house, the 3^rd respondent's mother-in-law one Irulayee (Deceased) came out of

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

the house. I enquired about the said Malaikannu and asked him to come out of home but the said Irulayee started to shout against me and my subordinates by using filthy languages. By hearing her sound the 3^rd respondent's brother one Amaravathy came there and by explaining him we took the said Irulayee to the police station. On the same day after some time about 8 a.m one Murugesan and Muniyandi came to the police station and explained that she had nothing to do with the illicit distiller Malaikannu. Hence she was allowed to go home and she was never detained at the police station for any other cause. After she returned home she consumed insecticide and despite the treatment in a private hospital, she died of poisoning at about 3.45 p.m."

¶16

Thus, it is evident that the said Irulayee was unnecessarily taken to the Police Station and she was kept in police station from 4.00 a.m to 8.00 a.m. The said detention was rightly taken note of by the State Human Rights Commission for the award of compensation by order dated 18.1.2013. For the award of compensation for illegal detention, some evidence was available before the second respondent.

¶17

It is also relevant to note that the deceased Irulayee, who was the mother-in-law of the third respondent, at the age of 65, was taken to the Police Station by the police team headed by the writ petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner has not stated as to whether there was woman police constable in the police party, to take the said old lady to the police station during the odd hours.

¶18

The Hon'ble Supreme court in the decision reported in (2003) 8 SCC 546 (State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India) held that a female person can be arrested for lawful reasons at any time of the day or night, depending upon the circumstances of the case, even without the presence of a lady constable. However, the person arresting the lady must take all efforts to keep a lady constable present and if a female person to be arrested emergently without the presence of lady constable, the person arresting the female person should record the reasons in writing, either before the arrest or immediately after the arrest. No such pleading is available in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

¶19

In the light of the admission made by the petitioner himself in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the State Human Rights Commission dated 18.1.2013, which was passed on the

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

basis of the factual findings. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed in limine. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶22

Sd/
Asst.Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub.Asst.Registrar
kb/vr
To
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE
CHENNAI-600 009.
2. THE REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION
GREENWAYS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 028.
1 cc To Government Pleader, SR.No.12959/2013
+1 cc to Mr.P.G. Santhosh kumar sr.no.2744/2013
W.P.No.5022 of 2013
sr(co)
pmk.22.3.2013

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Ponnambalam, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ponnambalam, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Tamilnadu Vs C. K. Velayuthan Nair

Mr.S.Shanmugarajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Kasi Vs Indian Bank

The Deputy General Manager Vs the Presiding Officer

R.Muthukrishnan Vs Union of India Represented

The Secretary Vs v. Madhuraj