Can't accuse police of human rights violation at the drop of a hat for a casual inquiry: Madras High Court

There is a thin line which differentiates between regular police inquiry and breach of human rights and police must not be accused of human rights violation at the drop of a hat, the Madras High Court recently held [Lakshmanan v The Secretary]..It, therefore, stayed a June 2021 order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) that had directed a police officer to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 to a mentally ill man, a trader of silver jewellery and goods, for alleged violation of his rights. In a judgment passed on February 8, a bench of Justices VM Velumani and R Hemalatha said that in the absence of cogent allegations of harassment or threat by the police, the Commission should not have concluded that the case was one of breach of human rights."Police force play a vital role in maintaining law and order. Though they need to exercise caution while handling such cases, they cannot be accused of human rights violation at the drop of a hat. It may turn out to be a demoralising factor to the entire police force. Therefore, the present case is not one which can be classified as a human rights violation," the High Court said.The bench also said that the public is habituated to visiting police stations even for the most "trivial issues." Therefore, arriving at a conclusion of violation of rights without cogent proof would put the entire police force on defence mode, the High Court said."The subject of human rights ciolation is such a sensitive one wherein careful scrutiny and analysis have to be done before holding that there has been an instance of human rights violation. Human rights ciolation includes arbitrary deprivation of life; 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," the Court said. .The Court was hearing a plea filed by the the police officer, challenging the SHRC order. The SHRC order had come following a complaint made by the silver trader, and complainant in the case, one G Ramesh. Ramesh told the High Court that he had sold some silver to another man, who in turn had sold it to a third party, and the three of them had entered into a civil dispute over pending payment for such sale. Ramesh alleged that the concerned officer, Lakshmanan had colluded with the third party and that Lakshmanan had coerced him into arriving at a settlement with the third party.Lakshmanan, however, denied the allegation. He said that he was an award winning police personnel, and that he was aware that all civil disputes were to be adjudicated upon only by statutory courts. However, Ramesh was in the habit of registering multiple complaints and FIRs over pending payment issues, Lakshmanan told the Court. The High Court examined the records and said that Ramesh indeed was in the habit of registering multiple FIRs. It also noted that Ramesh had been medically diagnosed as suffering from "medical ailments." It also said that Ramesh had not alleged any coercive or violent action on the police's part."The same report also contains portions which reflect the character of the complainant. It also makes reference to the fact that the complainant suffered from mental ailment. These are relevant because for deciding 'human rights violation' there need to be conclusive proof. There is a very thin line between human rights violation and regular police enquiry. It can be observed that the complainant had the habit of landing himself into financial problems on his own volition by lending money and has been approaching police since 2017 on several occasions," the Court said. It went on to say that there was no denying that instance of human rights violations occur at police stations. "But every instance of a casual police enquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation," the Court underlined..Advocate D Selvam appeared for the petitioner police personnel.Advocate S Wilson appeared for the SHRC.Government Advocate RL Karthika appeared for the TN government and the police.Advocate G Murugeshkumar appeared for the original complainant, G Ramesh. .[Read Judgment]