Dismissed

R. Sivasubramaniam v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Nov 2021WP/14343/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a Writ Petition seeking Rs. 25 Lakhs compensation for illegal arrest. The Court held that compensation cannot be quantified in writ proceedings without an elaborate enquiry regarding the allegations. Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically confer a right to claim compensation against the State. The Petition was consequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Writ Petition and prayer for compensation of Rs. 25 Lakhs.

R. Sivasubramaniam Vs the Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No. 14343 of 2011

¶6

R.Sivasubramaniam ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶9

The Inspector General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -4.

¶10

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur. 6. R.Amsaveni, Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Records Branch, Collectorate, Karur.

¶11

(Former Sub Inspector of Police, Komaralingam Police Station, Madathukulam Taluk,Tiruppur District.)

¶12

A.Thulasimani, ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to sanction the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.25/- Lakhs to the petitioner for the illegal arrest made by the 6th respondent on 23.08.2007.

¶13

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

¶14

F or Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate [For R1 to R5]

¶15

Mr.A.S.Balaji[For R6] Mr.Devaraj [For R7]

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The Writ of Mandamus is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to sanction the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the illegal arrest made by the sixth respondent/ Sub Inspector of Police on 23.08.2007.

¶18

Lawful actions of the competent authorities are to be protected. Equally, if any unlawful exercise of power is identified, action is warranted. This being the principles, when an allegation of harassment or illegal arrest is raised, no doubt, an enquiry is to be conducted. In the absence of any such elaborate enquiry, Court cannot quantify or grant compensation in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the facts narrated by the petitioner requires complete adjudication with reference to the documents and evidences and also through oral evidences.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 made a submission that the Criminal Case registered ended with an order of acquittal. However, mere acquittal in a Criminal Case would not confer any right to claim compensation against the State, who is the prosecuting authority. An order of acquittal is passed based on various grounds. Even the benefit of doubt, the accused persons are acquitted. Thus, mere acquittal cannot be considered as a ground for the purpose of granting compensation.

¶20

If any allegations of harassment or illegality is raised, such allegations are to be enquired into by the competent authority for establishing the case. Merely based on the affidavit filed in the present writ petition, High Court cannot form an opinion or quantify the compensation or otherwise.

¶21

Raising allegations against the Public Authorities are mostly common in recent days. On arrest, complaints are filed against the Police authorities in order to threaten those authorities or to demoralize them. Thus, the authorities of the Police Department and other Government Departments are expected to be cautious, while entertaining such allegations raised on the Public Authorities. No doubt, there are instances, where the

¶22

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

¶23

Police authorities are also exceeding their powers. However, an enquiry must be conducted for initiation of appropriate actions in respect of such allegations raised against the Public authorities.

¶24

The Executives and the Uniformed personnel are expected to perform their duties vigilantly and by following the procedures as contemplated under Law. While performing their official duties, it is necessary that an amount of fairness and transparency is required. Thus, the authorities must exercise the powers by adopting the procedures in order to avoid all such controversies and allegations from the persons, who all are booked for various offences or otherwise.

¶25

7.The Public authorities and their level of performance of the public duties are to be protected. Equally, rights of the citizen also to be protected. Thus, the competent authorities are expected to conduct an enquiry and form an opinion in respect of such allegations raised against the Public authorities on performance of their duties. High Court is also expected to exercise restraint in entertaining such writ petitions, where there is no scope for adjudications in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

The power of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes, through which, a decision is taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the procedures established under law, but not the decision itself.

¶27

All these kind of controversies aroused in view of the fact that, on some occasions, the police authorities are entertaining the civil natured disputes between the parties and there are allegations that the police officials on extraneous consideration, is supporting either of the parties and attempting to settle the issues between the parties, which is beyond the scope of the power conferred under the Statue.

¶28

The Police officials are not expected to adjudicate the civil disputes between the parties on receipt of any complaint and after conducting preliminary enquiry, if the authorities could able to form an opinion that the complaint is of civil nature, then the parties must be advised to approach the competent Civil Court of law for redressal of their grievances. However, in few cases, the Police authorities are conducting the enquiry of civil disputes between the parties in Police Station, which cause lot of problems and complaints are also filed against the Police authorities and in some cases, the Police authorities are attempting to extend their support to either of the party on extraneous consideration. All these aspects are to be looked into by the higher officials on receipt of any such complaints or allegations and initiate all appropriate actions.

¶29

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

¶30

In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for and consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

Jeni/Nti

¶36

¶37

The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶38

The Inspector General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -4.

¶39

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore RAnge, Coimbatore.

¶40

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur. +1cc to Mr.Prakasam, Advocate, S.R.No.60531 +1cc to Mr.Devaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.60742 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.61110 W.P.No. 14343 of 2011 MG(CO) RGA(08/12/2021)

¶41

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

R. Sivasubramaniam v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sivasubramaniam v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuppathal Vs Home Secretary

C. Madhan Vs Syndicate Bank

Krishnavinayagam Vs The Branch Manager

M/S. Lakshmi Petrolub Agencies Vs the Executive Director

Nilaa Vengadavan Vs the District Collector

Jayakrishna Modern Rice Mill, Vs the Managing Director