Madras High Court Upholds ₹5 Lakh Penalty On SI For Police Brutality, Notes Her "Arrogance" In Not Filing Counter Before Human Rights Body

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar also took note of the “arrogance” of the officer in not filing counter affidavit before the SHRC despite being given sufficient opportunities.

Noting the serious allegations against the officer and her failure to produce any records, the court concluded that the officer was not entitled to any indulgence by the court.

“By noticing the conduct of the petitioner herein in the light of serious allegations made against her, coupled with the arrogance of the petitioner herein in not filing counter before the respondent commission, and her failure to produce the relevant records despite direction by the respondent commission, in our considered view, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence of this court, especially while exercising its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Magitha Anna Christy, who was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Guduvancherry Police Station, Kanchipuram District, when the alleged incident happened.

A woman, Thamaraiselvi, had complained that Christy had assaulted her with a hand and a lathi and had even snatched valuables and cash that belonged to her. Thamaraiselvi filed a complaint which was taken on record by the SHRC and it was taken on record. The SHRC sent notice to Christ,y who entered an appearance through her counsel but failed to file any reply/counter even after affording opportunities.

Since Christy did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence, the SHRC decided the case on the merits. The SHRC took note of letter issued by the Medical Officer of the Prison Hospital and photographs showing the injuries suffered by the woman in her knees, swelling in left hand, right leg toe and fingers.

The SHRC concluded that the woman was assaulted by the SI. It concluded that the SI had acted hastily on a complaint, which was not even investigated and without giving an opportunity to the woman for legal aid and sending her to prison. The SHRC awarded compensation of Rs 5 Lakh to the woman and recommended severe disciplinary action against the SI.

The officer argued that the complaint was only intended to extract money from her. It was submitted that the woman had agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of Rs 3,50,000 and thus, requested that the order be interfered with.

The court however was not inclined to agree with the officer. The court noted that serious allegations of assault had been raised against her and the allegations in the complaint remained uncontroverted. Thus, the court noted that there was tacit admission by the officer. The court further noted that after failing to file counter, the officer could not find fault with the conclusions arrived at by the commission.

Thus, considering the allegations and the failure of officer to counter the same, the court was not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and interfere with the order of the SHRC and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. P. Keerthana for M/s. Murali Law Firm

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. J. Baranidharan

Case Title: Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90

Case No: W.P.No.14267 of 2021