Allowed

J.George Miller Ponraj v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC29 Oct 2025WP/28635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an SHRC order. The court held that a police officer's dereliction of duty and procedural delays do not amount to a violation of human rights. Consequently, it set aside the SHRC order directing compensation and disciplinary action against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the State Human Rights Commission directing payment of compensation and initiation of disciplinary action was set aside.

J.George Miller Ponraj Vs Government of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

2025:MHC:2541

¶2

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 29.10.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶7

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶8

and WMP.No.28398 of 2019

¶9

Mr.J.George Miller Ponraj, S/o.P.Jeyaraj presently working as Inspector of Police (L&O), P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station, Chennai-600039 Formerly worked as Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Chennai-600059 ...Petitioner Vs. 1.Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶10

2.Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028

3.M.Velan

... Respondents

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in order dated 11.02.2019 passed in SHRC No.9493 of 2013 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner alone.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Madhan for Mr.Chinnadurai For Respondents : Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate for R1 Mr.A.Vijayakumar for R3

¶18

R2- No appearance

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH.J,)

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to

¶22

call for th e records of the second respondent pertaining to the proceedings dated 11.02.2019 passed in SHRC No.9493 of 2013, and quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner alone.

¶23

2. The gist of the complaint dated 13.02.2013 filed before the State

¶24

Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is that it pertains to a civil dispute between the third respondent and one J.Shantha. As per the said complaint, the third respondent was forcefully taken to the Ambattur Page 2 of 6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶27

Police Station, where he was assaulted, and his shirt was torn. It was therefore, alleged that his human rights had been violated.

¶28

3. Before the SHRC, the third respondent and his wife examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2. The SHRC, predominantly, had referred to the delay on the part of the petitioner in registering the complaint and has found certain discrepancies in the conduct of the investigation. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case , the SHRC held that the petitioner had failed to perform his duty in accordance with law and had also violated the procedures laid down in the said decision and accordingly, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had violated the human rights of complainant.

¶29

4. We fail to understand as to how the discrepancies in the performance of the duties of a police official can be termed to be a violation of human rights, as recorded by the SHRC. At the most, what can be inferred from such alleged irregular conduct of duties would be a dereliction of the duties alone and will not amount to violation of human rights.

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶33

5. Before the SHRC, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had reiterated the averments

¶34

made in their complaint with regard to the alleged assault by the petitioner herein. Though the SHRC had extracted the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there was no findings rendered touching upon such depositions with regard to the alleged assault. On the other hand, the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner has alone been projected to be as violation of human rights.

¶35

6. In this background, we are unable to approve the recommendations made by the SHRC, directing payment of compensation to the complainant and recovery of the same from the petitioner herein, as well as the recommendation for initiating disciplinary action against him.

¶36

7. In the result, the impugned order passed in SHRC No.9493 of 2013 dated 11.02.2019 is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V., J] 29.10.2025

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Anu

¶42

¶43

1.The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶44

2.Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028

¶45

M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶46

Anu

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.28635 of 2019

¶50

W.P.No.28635 of 2019 and WMP.No.28398 of 2019

¶51

29.10.2025

¶52

Page 6 of 6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

J.George Miller Ponraj v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.George Miller Ponraj v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs P. Balakrishnan

S.Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Parthiban Vs the Lok Adalat-Ii

C.Gajendran Vs The District Collector

Union of India Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Karuppusamy Vs Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Ltd)