The Bombay High Court recently ordered ₹1 lakh in compensation to a woman from Mumbai for the unlawful arrest of her husband, while also highlighting serious concerns about police misconduct [Ratna Chandrakant Vannam And Anr v. Tukaram K. Jadhav].

The Bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande expressed their anguish over how cases involving police misconduct are often treated lightly, especially in this case.

"We had already expressed our anguish in no uncertain words in our order dated August 14, 2013, specifically by recording that the allegations against the police officers are taken very lightly and casually and the citizens are not believed as a matter of course and here is a classic example," the Court stated.

The case dates back to September 2012, when Ratna Chandrakant Vannam's husband, Chandrakant Vannam, was arrested on allegations of illegal construction while the couple was repairing their home.

Their neighbor reportedly demanded ₹20,000 from the Vannams, and when they refused, the neighbor filed a complaint accusing them of illegal construction.

The Vannams went to the Wadala TT Police Station to report the harassment, but their complaint was not registered saying it fell under the purview of another authority. Shortly after, the police arrested Chandrakant Vannam along with five workers from the construction site.

Assistant Police Inspector (API) Tukaram Jadhav, who handled the case, allegedly demanded ₹12,000 for the release of the husband and ₹1,200 for each worker. The workers were released after the fines were paid, but Vannam remained in custody until he was bailed out.

It was also claimed that API Jadhav initially demanded ₹10,000 from Mrs. Vannam to close the case altogether. The police justified the arrest by referring to the Maharashtra Police Act which bars unauthorized construction that could endanger the public, but the High Court disagreed, stating that while the police might have had the power to arrest, it was not mandatory in this case.

“Even if assuming that there was power of arrest, it did not make it imperative for a police officer to effect the arrest,” the Bench remarked, emphasizing that other remedies should have been explored before resorting to arrest.

The Court was equally critical of the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against API Jadhav. Despite the Court’s previous orders directing a thorough inquiry into the police's actions, only a minor penalty of ₹2,000 was imposed on Jadhav.

“We express that the case of arrest of the Petitioner No.2 (Vannam) in above circumstanced is a classic example of the abuse and misuse of the powers by the police officials and for their act, the petitioners had to suffer and we have noted that despite our direction, no action contemplated through disciplinary proceedings is initiated against the respondent no.1 (Jadhav)," the Court said.

The Bench expressed further frustration that the inquiry conducted by the authorities had failed to address the core issue of whether Jadhav's actions were legally justified.

“We are astonished by the approach of the Respondent authorities, as what was expected by this Court, pursuant to the order dated 14/08/2013, was an inquiry, into the act of dereliction of duty/misconduct as per the Service Rules,” the Court said.

Instead of addressing the misconduct, the inquiry focused solely on Jadhav’s failure to file an affidavit in a previous court order, for which he was fined ₹2,000.

The Court criticized the authorities for failing to understand or deliberately ignoring the seriousness of its directives.

“We fail to make out as to whether the respondent authorities have failed to understand the implications of the directions issued by this Court or despite understanding, the same has ignored it by passing the impugned order and imposing fine upon Mr. Jadhav only for the act of non-filing of the affidavit in compliance of our order,” the Court said.

In light of these findings, the Court ruled that the arrest was an abuse of police power.

"We express that the case of arrest in above circumstanced is a classic example of the abuse and misuse of the powers by the police officials and for their act, the petitioners had to suffer and we have noted that despite our direction, no action contemplated through disciplinary proceedings is initiated against Jadhav," it observed.

The Court subsequently awarded ₹1 lakh as compensation to the wife of Vannam for his unlawful detention. The State was ordered to pay the compensation amount. The Court clarified that the State is at liberty to recover this amount from the errant police officers responsible for the illegal arrest.

The Bench also emphasized the need for higher authorities to ensure compliance with the Court’s directions, stating,

“We leave it to the good conscience of the higher ups in the Police Department to ensure compliance of our orders dated 14.08.2013, if it is permissible and possible after more than a decade.”

Advocate Suvidha Patil appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor DJ Haldankar appeared for the State

[Read Judgment]