Madras HC Refuses Compensation To Lawyer Injured By Police Action On 'Unlawful' PFI March, Says Private Persons Must Also Uphold Rule Of Law

While refusing relief to a lawyer seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained at the hands of the police in connection with a PFI march, the Madras High Court emphasised that law applies not only to the State machinery but also to individuals. Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench was constrained to make the statement after noting that the petitioner and other members of the organisation had conducted march from a different site than which was allowed by the police and when the police rushed to the spot, instead of responding in a peaceful manner, the members had exhibited defiance. Thus, the court opined that the assembly was unlawful and the conduct of the organisers was illegal. “The core issue is the act of assembling outside the Pallivasal in large numbers and that too on the highway. The police had not permitted PFI to commence their procession from the said site at all. They were taken by surprise. The team headed by the fifth respondent rushed to the spot. The members of the assembly ought to have straightaway courted arrest in a peaceful manner. Instead, according to the police, what they did was to exhibit defiance. Rule of law applies not only to officials and the state machinery but also to private individuals,” the court said. The petitioner lawyer had approached the court claiming that PFI had proposed to hold a public meeting on February 17, 2014 at Ramanathapuram. He informed the court that though the police did not have any objection for public meeting, they denied permission for a procession and later a permission was granted to conduct the procession from Chinnakadai Junction to Santhaipettai Thidal, the venue of the meeting. He contended that though assembly was being held peacefully, some private persons started creating a commotion which led to the lathi charge injuring the petitioner and others. Thus, he sought compensation for his injuries. The court noted that PFI had commenced their assembly not from the designated area but from a further place. The court observed that if the organisation was not satisfied with any of the conditions imposed by the police, they could have approached the court and not commenced their march from a different location on their own. The court also noted that a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner and others for attacking the police and same was still pending. The court also took note of the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, SID, CB-CID, as per the directions of the court which was also in favour of the police. The court also observed that even in the age of visual media, the petitioner could not bring in any material to show that the police had indulged in excessive use of force. “We are now in the age of visual media. Almost everyone has a smart-phone. It is true that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is an averment that the cameramen were attacked and their equipment seized. But I find it difficult to believe that none of the members of PFI did not videograph the entire action… Thus before me there is no impeachable material to show that the police indulged in excessive use of force or that without any provocation from PFI, they resorted to lathi-charge,” the court observed. With respect to compensation, the court noted that while it was the duty of the police and well as the district administration to provide prompt medical treatment free of cost to those who suffered injuries, in the present case, the petitioner got admitted to a private hospital himself. The court added that “no fault liability” could not be applied to the present case. “The State cannot be expected to bear the cost of treatment if the petitioner chose to get himself admitted in a private institution. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authorities of government hospital declined to provide treatment. The concept of “No fault liability” that one finds in Motor Vehicles Act cannot be imported in cases such as the one on hand,” the court said. Thus, observing that there was no case to grant relief, the court dismissed the petitions. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Henri Tiphagne Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Baskaran, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R4. Mr.George Paul Anto for R5 to R7 & R9 to R13 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 283Case Title: SA Syed Shaik Alaudeen v State and OthersCase No: W.P(MD)No.7978 of 2014Click here to read/download the judgment

Madras HC Refuses Compensation To Lawyer Injured By Police Action On 'Unlawful' PFI March, Says Private Persons Must Also Uphold Rule Of Law

Upasana Sajeev

Tags