The Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) directing an Inspector of Police and a Sub-Inspector of Police to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000 each, on the ground that the SHRC exceeded its jurisdiction by enquiring into allegations of improper handling of complaints without sufficient material to establish a human rights violation. The bench comprising Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar heard petitions filed by the two police officials challenging the SHRC’s order, which was based on a complaint lodged by a woman alleging human rights violations by the police.
The court observed that while the SHRC may take cognisance of complaints, it cannot proceed with an enquiry into the manner in which police officials dealt with complaints or registered criminal cases unless there is adequate material to show a violation of human rights. The bench emphasized that if any excess is committed by police officers, the remedy lies elsewhere, particularly when the allegations pertain to the handling of complaints and the registration of cases.
The woman had submitted that she was living separately from her husband when her neighbours began teasing her, following which an FIR was registered. During the pendency of the trial, the neighbours threatened her not to depose against them. She alleged that when she approached the police station to lodge a complaint against the men, the Sub-Inspector threatened her with imprisonment through a false FIR unless she withdrew her complaint. She further stated that when her representation was taken up by the Inspector for inquiry, he asked her to sit near him and placed his hands on her lap, after which she left the police station without signing the report. Additionally, she claimed that when her minor child was assaulted by the neighbours, she went to the police station to lodge a complaint, but instead a false case was registered against her and her husband.
Based on her representation to higher authorities, the SHRC took cognisance of the matter and, finding her case to be genuine, directed the two police officials to pay compensation. The police officials challenged the order, arguing that the SHRC had exceeded its powers and failed to follow due process. They contended that if the woman had grievances, she should have approached the appropriate Magistrate’s Court.
The court noted that the SHRC, while passing its order, failed to substantiate the reasons for arriving at the finding of a human rights violation or for fixing liability on the police officials. It held that the SHRC should have indicated how the allegations made by the woman were established and how the materials on record supported its conclusion against the officials. The bench stressed that the SHRC must demonstrate a clear link between the allegations and the conclusion of human rights violation before proceeding with any enquiry or imposing liability.
The court further observed that if the woman had grievances against the manner in which the police officers dealt with her complaint, the remedy depended on the nature of the grievance and the allegations made, and such recourse was available elsewhere. It concluded that the SHRC had travelled beyond the scope and ambit of its jurisdiction by conducting an enquiry into the handling of complaints without sufficient material to establish a human rights violation. Accordingly, the order directing payment of compensation was set aside.