Court affirms Commission's decision on abuse of power by police, awards compensation to victim and recommends disciplinary action.
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court, sitting in a Division Bench comprising Dr. Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mrs. Magitha Anna Christy, a Sub-Inspector of Police. The petition sought to quash the order of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, which found the petitioner guilty of abusing her power and assaulting a complainant, resulting in a human rights violation.
The petitioner, Mrs. Magitha Anna Christy, was accused by Respondent No. 2 of brutally assaulting her while she was in custody at the Guduvancherry Police Station, Kanchipuram District. The complaint was registered as S.H.R.C.No.11153/2018. Despite being notified, the petitioner failed to file a counter or provide any evidence to refute the allegations, even after being given multiple opportunities by the Commission. The Commission relied on medical evidence and photographs substantiating the complainant's allegations and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the victim, while also recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner.
The High Court noted that the petitioner's failure to respond to the Commission's proceedings indicated a tacit admission of the allegations. The court further emphasized that police personnel must adhere to the law and are not entitled to assault individuals, reinforcing the necessity of accountability within the police force.
Despite the petitioner's counsel arguing that the complaint was financially motivated, the court was unconvinced due to the unchallenged serious allegations of assault. The Bench emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked when the petitioner has shown conduct that suggests an admission of guilt and failed to provide necessary evidence despite ample opportunity.
The court's decision highlights the judiciary's role in upholding human rights and ensuring that law enforcement officials are held accountable for misconduct. The judgment serves as a stern reminder to the police force about the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards in their duties.
Bottom Line:
Abuse of power by police personnel resulting in human rights violations and failure to file a counter or produce relevant records before the Human Rights Commission leads to rejection of writ petition challenging commission's order.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
