The Madras High Court agreed with the State Human Rights Commission’s decision asking two police officers to pay compensation for allegedly mistreating a man in custody. The Court said the officers’ challenge came too late and there was no need to interfere with the decision.
Brief Facts of the Case
In 2013, a man named Rajinikanth filed a complaint saying he was wrongly accused in a cheating case and tortured by police officers Babu Rajendra Bose and Mani. He said he was taken to the police station at 3 a.m., stripped, beaten, and robbed of gold and money. He also said he was denied medical care and later assaulted again. He complained to the Human Rights Commission, which ruled in his favor and told the government to pay him ₹1 lakh as compensation. The government agreed and decided to recover the money from the officers.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonest behavior.
- Section 18 of the Human Rights Act, 1993: Allows the Commission to recommend compensation and the government must act on it.
- Section 54 CrPC: Right to medical check-up after arrest.
- 2021 (3) CTC 129 – Abdul Sattar Case: Court ruling that Human Rights Commission recommendations are binding unless legally challenged.
Arguments of Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioners (Police Officers):
- The complaint was false and aimed to stop a legal case.
- There was no medical proof of torture.
- The Commission didn’t consider all the facts.
- There was no proper reason given for setting the compensation amount.
Respondents (State & SHRC):
- The Human Rights Commission followed the correct process.
- The government has to pay victims of rights violations and can recover the amount from responsible officers.
- The law allows this compensation system.
Court’s Observation
- The Court said SHRC is a legally-backed authority, and its decisions matter unless challenged in time.
- Even if there were no visible injuries, the detailed complaint and documents supported the man’s claim of being mistreated.
- The officers waited too long to file their petitions, which weakened their case.
- Police have a duty to treat all citizens with dignity and must follow rules that protect human rights.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Court rejected the officers’ petitions. It confirmed the SHRC’s order for the government to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to Rajinikanth and recover ₹50,000 each from the two officers.
Comments from the author of this website
When a system accepts serious accusations without demanding solid proof, it puts individuals at risk of being punished merely based on claims. In this case, despite no visible injuries and a lack of convincing medical evidence, the officers were held personally responsible. Their version of events was largely overlooked, and their legal response was considered too late, regardless of the circumstances.
This raises concerns about how quickly blame is placed, especially when the accused are men in positions of authority. There’s a growing pattern where due process is pushed aside, and reputations are damaged before facts are correctly verified. The fear of being accused—and the cost that comes with it, personally and professionally—can discourage honest individuals from fulfilling their roles confidently.
Final Thoughts
A fair justice system must protect rights on both sides, not just the accuser’s. Every allegation must be heard, but so should every defence. When decisions are made without complete evidence, they risk harming not only individuals but also the trust in legal institutions. Ensuring balance, due process, and accountability for all parties involved is essential to upholding true justice.
Read Complete Judgement Here