Categories: Other Courts

“There Is A Very Thin Line Between Human Rights Violation And Police Enquiry”: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently has held that every instance of casual police inquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation.

A division bench of Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha observed that, “There are instances. But every instance of a casual police enquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation. The awareness amongst public is also lacking. They do not differentiate between civil and criminal matters. More sensitisation of the police force in such matter is required. Police force play a vital role in maintaining law and order.”

In support of this, the Court stated that “every instance of a casual police investigation cannot be considered a human rights violation.

“In this case, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, approached the Court to challenge a State Human Rights Commission order.

The order was issued by the SHRC in response to a complaint alleging that the Petitioner had colluded with third parties to force the Complainant to reach a settlement regarding some money owed to him.

The bench observed after hearing the parties that “Human Rights Violation is such a sensitive subject that it requires careful scrutiny and analysis before concluding that there has been an instance of Human Rights Violation. Torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred are all examples of human rights violations.”

The Court noted that for deciding human rights violations, there must be conclusive proof. In light of the same, the Court said that “There is a very thin line between human rights violation and regular police enquiry.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that the Complainant had a habit of getting himself into financial trouble on his own by lending money. It was also discovered that the Complainant had a habit of going to different police stations with different attorneys and insisting on filing FIRs.

As a result, the Court ruled that “The contents of the report make it clear that the complainant was not a victim of a human rights violation. He was not detained illegally, nor was he subjected to mental harassment or torture.”

Therefore, the writ petition was granted, and the SHRC’s orders were reversed.

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

Centre Opposes Ex-Judges Panel To Monitor Stubble Burning In SC

The Centre on Friday opposed a proposal in the Supreme Court to form a committee…

10 hours ago

“It’s A Celebration For Us”: Delhi HC Bar Association Felicitates CJI Sanjiv Khanna

The Delhi High Court Bar Association on Friday honored Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv…

10 hours ago

International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant For Israeli PM Netanyahu

The International Criminal Court has recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,…

11 hours ago

Cal HC Stays Demolition Of Illegal Constructions In WB’s Mandarmoni

The Calcutta High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on the demolition of alleged…

11 hours ago

SC To Pass Order On Pleas To Efface Words ‘Secular’, ‘Socialist’ From Preamble

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would deliver its order on November 25…

12 hours ago

Air Pollution: SC Questions Delhi Govt On Truck Entry Amid GRAP-4 Restrictions

The Supreme Court raised concerns on Friday about the "drastic" consequences of the GRAP Stage…

12 hours ago