SHRC Can't Enquire Into Police Handling Of Complaints Without Sufficient Material To Establish Human Rights Violation: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar thus set aside an order of the SHRC which had directed two police officers to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000 each, based on a complaint by a woman. The court held that if there was police excess, the remedy was elsewhere and the SHRC could not inquire into the same.

“There is no substance to intervene in a State Human Rights Commission action against an Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police for the alleged manner in which the complaints and representations of the fourth respondent were dealt with, without there being sufficient material to establish violation of human rights. If there is any excess committed by the police officers, the remedy lies elsewhere, particularly when the allegations relate to the manner in which the police officials dealt with the complaints and the registration of criminal cases. There is no power available to the State Human Rights Commission to conduct such an enquiry in the manner in which it has proceeded in the present case,” the court said.

The court was hearing petitions filed by an Inspector of Police and a Sub-Inspector of Police against an order of the SHRC directing them to pay Rs 1,00,000 each for alleged police excess. The SHRC had passed the order on a complaint lodged by a woman alleging human rights violations by the police officials.

The woman had submitted that she was living separately from her husband when her neighbours started teasing her, following which an FIR was registered. While the case was pending trial, the neighbours threatened her not to depose against them. The woman alleged that when she went to the police station to give a complaint against the men, the Sub-Inspector threatened her that unless she withdrew her complaint, she would be sent to prison through a false FIR.

The woman further alleged that when her representation was taken up by the Inspector for inquiry, he asked her to sit near him and laid his hands on her lap, following which she left the police station without signing the report. She added that later, when her minor child was assaulted by the neighbour men, she had again gone to the police station to lodge a complaint, but instead a false case was registered against the woman and her husband.

Based on the representation sent by the woman to the higher authorities, the SHRC took cognisance of the offence. Finding the case projected by the woman to be genuine, the SHRC directed payment of compensation.

The police officials argued that the SHRC had exceeded its powers and had not conducted the proceedings as per law. It was argued that if there were grievances, the woman should have approached the appropriate Magistrate's Court.

The court noted that while passing an order, the SHRC should substantiate the reasons for arriving at the finding of human rights violation and for fixing the liability upon the concerned police official. The court added that the SHRC should indicate how the allegations made by the woman were established and how the materials available supported the conclusion arrived at against the police officials.

The court noted that if the woman had grievances against the manner in which the police officers dealt with her complaint, the remedy was elsewhere depending upon the nature of the grievance and the allegations made.

The court observed that the SHRC could not have conducted an enquiry into the allegations of improper handling of complaints in the absence of materials to establish a violation of human rights. Thus, noting that the SHRC had travelled beyond the scope and ambit of its jurisdiction, the court set aside the order.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Anand

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. G. Mohan Kumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Gokul Abimanyu for M/s. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Associates, Ms. P. Jessi Jeeva Priya

Case Title: T Parthiban and Another v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

Case No: WP (MD) Nos 15619 and 15732 of 2019