Kerala High Court Directs State To Pay ₹14 Lakh Compensation To NRI Man & Kin For Wrongful Detention

Justice P.M. Manoj awarded Rs. 10 lakhs to the man and Rs. 1 lakh each to four of his family members as a compensation for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment faced by them at the hands of the police officers.

The petitioner, V.K. Thajudheen, was working in Qatar in an establishment providing rent-a-car services. He came to Kerala in 2018 on 15 days' leave to conduct his daughter's wedding(petitioner no. 4). At this time, he was falsely implicated in a chain snatching case, leading to his arrest and subsequent custody for 54 days until he was finally granted bail by the High Court.

Since he could not join back at his work on time, he lost his job and was also imprisoned in Qatar for 23 days upon his return. Though he went before the Human Rights Commission, State Commissions for Child Rights and Minorities and other higher police officials, it was to no avail.

Finally, Thajudheen and his family came before the High Court seeking to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for violation of their fundamental right to life under Article 21 and seeking a compensation of Rs. 1 crore.

While the petitioners were travelling home from their relative's house during the night, a police party led by one of the respondent police officers intercepted them. The police officers dragged Thajudheen from the car even though it was intimated by the others that he was suffering from back pain and forcefully took his photos.

They called him a thief and threatened the family, then took them to the police station during early morning hours. The respondents accused him of snatching a woman's gold chain of 5 ½ sovereigns while riding a white scooter and showed a CCTV footage of a bearded man committing the crime, who they claimed was Thajudheen. He was arrest and the police seized his passport, his son's expensive watch, and Rs. 56,000/-.

The petitioners claimed that they were subjected to physical and mental torture at the hands of the police. Thajudheen was then arrayed in a crime under Section 392 IPC. Afterwards, he was paraded in front of the public in the name of taking evidence. However, the chain nor the scooter were seized from his possession.

Though the petitioners tried to inform the police that Thajudheen was far from the place of occurrence at the time of the theft, it fell on deaf ears. Their requests for expert examination of CCTV footage and tracking of tower location were declined.

Subsequently, he had to approach the Chief Minister seeking intervention in the matter. Thereupon, the deputy superintendent of police was appointed to conduct a thorough investigation. After the DySP's investigation, Thajudheen was exonerated and another man was implicated in the crime.

In the DySP's report, the lapses made by the respondent police officers were noted. Additionally, certain facts in favour of them were also pointed out, including the fact that the complainant identified Thajudheen as the culprit, etc.

The 2^nd respondent investigating officer contended that the petitioners were not tortured. He defended his action by saying that many identified him as the person in the CCTV footage and said that it was based on the evidence gathered that came to the conclusion that Thajudheen was the culprit. It was further alleged that Thajudheen's arrest in Qatar was because of involvement in some financial fraud but this was not backed by evidence.

After considering the submissions, the Court felt that the sole question to be considered was whether jurisdiction under Article 226 was to invoked to award compensation for the illegal arrest and detention of an innocent person.

The Court opined that the jurisdiction can be exercised only in certain peculiar circumstances. It was further observed that the object of granting compensation in illegal detention cases is two-fold:

“The object of granting such compensation is twofold: first, to recompense the individual for the harm suffered, and second, to ensure public accountability by reaffirming the rule of law, which mandates that the State and its instrumentalities act within the bounds of legality. By awarding compensation, the court affirms that the State cannot act in derogation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and that any abuse of power resulting in the violation of fundamental rights must attract public accountability. This remedy therefore serves a dual objective: to provide effective redressal to the victim and to deter similar violations by State authorities in the future.”

The Court referred to various established precedents on the subject and felt that the present one was fit case to award compensation because of the humiliation and suffering faced by the petitioners.

“The award of compensation is restricted to Rs.10 lakhs for the 1st petitioner and Rs.1 lakh each for the other petitioners (wife, son, daughter, minor son), only as a measure of self-restraint while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226, invoking public law remedy,” the Court added.

The Court made it clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to pursue other civil law remedies against the police officers for the damages sustained. It further clarified that the State, if it chooses to, can recover the compensation amount from the respondent police officers responsible after adopting due procedure.

Thus, it disposed of the plea.

Case No: WP(C) No. 9494 of 2019

Case Title: V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

Counsel for the petitioners: Asaf Ali, Laliza T.Y.

Counsel for the respondents: Gracious Kuriakose – ADGP, C.K. Suresh, Suman Chakravarthy - Senior Govt.Pleader, P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Pooja Pankaj, P.M.Rafiq, M. Revikrishnan, Vipin Narayan, V.C. Sarath, Sruthy N. Bhat, Y. Jafar Khan - Sr. Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment