Allowed

P.Sujan Sundari v. T.N.State Human Rights

Madras HC2 Dec 2015WP/27874/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition quashing the State Human Rights Commission's order that closed a complaint regarding alleged illegal detention merely by forwarding it to the Police. The Court directed the Commission to obtain a police report before deciding on action.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Police authorities directed to submit a report to the Human Rights Commission within two months.

P.Sujan Sundari Vs T.N.State Human Rights — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 02.12.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

Writ Petition No.27874 of 2012

¶7

P.Sujan Sundari .... Petitioner Versus 1. T.N.State Human Rights Commission represented by its Registrar, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai 28.

¶8

2.Masilamani 3.Ramesh

¶9

4.Pratab. .... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in case number of 5037 of 2012 dated 6^th August, 2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to conduct full fledged enquiry on the petitioner's complaint dated 20^th June, 2012 to the 1^st respondent.

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.STS.Murthi

¶12

Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶15

The wife of the person detained had filed the petition before the State Human Rights Commission alleging illegal detention of her husband. The subsequent events are that he was released and learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is facing trial in more than one case, but the question is whether there was a proper detention qua the four days' period when he was not traceable.

¶16

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

¶17

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint has been closed by forwarding it to the Superintendent of Police for necessary action and that is not the manner in which the complaint could have been closed by the State Human Rights Commission as it should have either obtained the report from the Police first or made an independent enquiry considering exigency of the situation.

¶18

In the given situation, we are of the view, the appropriate order by this court would be to set aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2012 and ask the Police authorities to place their report before the State Human Rights Commission which may then consider as to what action, if any, is required in the matter. The report of the Police be submitted within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this order to the Human Rights Commission.

¶19

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. No costs.

¶20

ksr

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Judicial)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

To 1 The Registrar, T.N.State Human Rights Commission No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai 28. 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLUR & DISTRICT

¶23

SAI(CO)

¶24

SD 15/12/2015

¶25

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

P.Sujan Sundari v. T.N.State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sujan Sundari v. T.N.State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Mani Vs The Collector of Kancheepuram

Telugu Sahithya Parishath Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

K.Jayapal Vs the District Collector

A.Thiyaragaanan S/O.S.Arthnari Vs P.Mayalagu Rangarajan

R.Mariyammal Vs The District Collector

K.Satheesh Kumar Vs The Member Secretary