"Conducted Parallel Trial": Madras High Court Quashes Tamil Nadu SHRC Order Against Police In Lois Sofia Case

In September 2018, Sofia, a research scholar from Canada, was arrested after she shouted “fascist BJP government down, down” on board a flight in the presence of the BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan, who filed a complaint. It may be noted that in August, 2023, the High Court had quashed the FIR against Sofia.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the SHRC had made its recommendations, noting that there were discrepancies in the time of arrest and that the charge under Section 505(1)(b) [statement conducing to public mischief] was inserted by hand in the printed FIR.

The court held that such discrepancies should have been a matter of trial and it was not for the SHRC to decide the issues. The court observed that the Commission had conducted a parallel trial and its findings were per se illegal. The court was thus inclined to quash the commission's order.

“Further, the minor discrepancy, even if it is there in the documentation, is a matter of trial and for the Magistrate to decide. It is not for the Human Rights Commission to preconclude the issue. Ignoring its limits, the Human Rights Commission had conducted a parallel trial. The finding rendered by the Human Rights Commission, regarding the merits of the complaint is per se illegal. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order passed by the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission is liable to be quashed,” the court said.

The court also observed that the police officers, who were supposed to maintain law and order had taken spot decisions when Sofia started shouting in the airport. The court thus opined that the action of the officers could not be faulted with.

“We, having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side, are able to visualize that the complainant, Dr.Thamizhisai Soundararajan, the State President of BJP got annoyed of being confronted with a young girl, shouting madly and even after the polite enquiry with her, she had asserted her right to shout in the Airport on seeing a person, who is not of her liking or a person, who belongs to a Party, which has a different ideology. The Police Officials, who are supposed to maintain the law and order, while registering the First Information Report, had taken spot decisions, which cannot be faulted,” the court observed.

The court was hearing petitions filed by police officials challenging the recommendation by the SHRC. It was submitted that the allegation against Sofia was not just for raising slogans in an intimidating manner but Soundararajan had also raised suspicion about Sofia's background, since her behaviour was abnormal and arrogant.

The petitioners also submitted that Soundararajan had initially lodged the complaint before the Airport Authority of India which was later forwarded to the local police and proceeded. They argued that Sofia's detention, at that time, was not an arrest, as alleged by her father who had filed a complaint with the SHRC. It was submitted that Sofia was later arrested only after registering the complaint and after being prima facie satisfied about the veracity of the complaint.

Sofia's father, on the other hand, submitted that the SHRC had taken note of the defects, and the malafide intention of adding Section 505(1)(b) of IPC, which should not have happened.

The court noted that the FIR was not the encyclopedia of the crime. The court added that the content in the complaint provide prima facie material for the police to register FIR and it was only during investigation that the truth comes out. The court thus opined that the SHRC had stretched its imagination beyond facts.

Thus, the court allowed the plea by the officers and set aside the order of SHRC

Counsel for Petitioner: R. Karthikeyan, Mr. J. Jeyakumaran

Counsel for Respondents: M/s. S. Udaya Kumar, Mr. V. Ravi, Spl.Gp, Ms. M. Sreela, Mr. Q. Karunanidhi

Case Title: V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113

Case No: WP No. 9610 of 2022