CONTRIBUTION OF MADURAI HIGH COURT BENCH
IN UPHOLDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS
- R. KARUNANIDHI
(Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court)
INTRODUCTION
My endeavor in this article is to summon up the verdicts rendered by the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Human Rights perspective. I
may fail to bring all the contribution done by respected and judges and learned
advocates in this compilation. When
I was doing my law graduation at Government Law College, the Madras High Court
Bench at Madurai was inaugurated on July 24, 2004. The High Court Bench came as
a shot in the arm for the litigants in southern districts who otherwise had to
travel all the way to Chennai to file cases in the principal seat. I always remember the enormous efforts of
advocates and other persons who fought for establishing the Bench at Madurai. Number
of victims approached the Bench and received relief and
justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure of Code and various provisions of law. “Human Rights” have been the subject of much jurisprudential discussion at Madurai
Bench from its inception. Section 2(d)
of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defined the word "Human Rights" means, the rights relating
to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the
Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by
courts in India. But our High Court Bench extended the relief and interpreted
the rights in number of different ways by its great rulings in favour of
victims of serious rights violation.
RIGHT TO SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
i. The
Bench, that served as a messiah for many a people, began functioning even on
Sundays, in case of emergency cases, from January 2009. The first case filed
and heard on a Sunday was the one filed by 64-year-old advocate and social
activist P. Rathinam seeking
police permission for an ‘Equality Function to Eradicate Oppression' at
Melavalavu near here. A News Paper reported as, On January 25, 2009, a Sunday,
Justice A. Selvam of the High Court rode down to the court buildings in a
motorbike belonging to his personal assistant and heard the case at Court Hall
No. 12. Two court employees were summoned over the phone to conduct the
proceedings and an order was passed granting permission for the function.
ii. The Police arbitrarily refused permission to
hold the opening of the library and meeting. The function was organized only
for the purpose of opening a library to create awareness amongst Dalits and to
enlighten them about their rights. The
Petitioner’s counsel sought for permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
High Court and as per the direction of the Chief Justice, special sitting was
ordered on 04.07.2009 at 8.00 P.M. and the matter was heard. The High Court
Bench issued direction to hold the opening of the library and meeting with
certain conditions in view of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
(P.Rathinam-Vs- The
Superintendent of Police W.P.(MD)No.5765
of 2009).
RIGHT TO A DECENT BURIAL
i. Writ Petition is filed for issuance direction
to Government to take all necessary steps to enforce the provisions of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and
the rules made hereunder without any delay to arrest the menace of
untouchability being practised even by the public servants and further prayed
to provide sufficient police protection to the scheduled caste people of
Thirumalayanpatti Village during the cremation of dead bodies, in the
"Cremation-cum-Graveyard". The Division Bench held even though about
60 years have elapsed after the passing of the Constitution, the practice of
untouchability has not been completely abolished. The need of the hour is to
educate the people so that the pernicious practice would be abolished sooner
than or later and all efforts should be made to eradicate any such forbidden
practice wherever it raises its ugly head directly or even indirectly. Further
High Court held that the officers should be more pro-active in
preventing any forbidden practice of untouchability. It is no doubt true that
in a particular village or in a particular area there may be some apprehension
of law and order situation. It is a matter for the public officials, including
the Collector and Superintendent of Police to control the same. It will be the
duty of all public officials concerned to ensure that no member of any
particular community would be forced to go to a different place for the purpose
of cremation of a dead body. Anything contrary, either directly or indirectly,
would obviously be against the sentiments expressed in Article 17 of the
Constitution. "in death at least all people are equal". The laudable
object of the said poem should be brought to the notice of each and every
individual and no efforts should be made to create any vivisection in the
society. (P. Rathinam -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government (2009
(2) CTC 405).
ii. Unfortunately
Petitioner’s son was murdered at abroad and the
father could not bring the mortal of his from abroad to our country in view of
the poverty. Bench issued direction to the State Government to
make arrangements through the High Commission of India at Kualalumpur to bring
the dead body of the petitioner's son S.Suseendran who died on 28.01.2007 at
Malaysia, to India and hand over the dead body to the petitioner, within a
period of three weeks. Further Tamil Nadu Police was directed to register the First Information
Report and investigate into the same in accordance Section 4 I.P.C. and Section
188 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of carrying out an effective investigation, the 7th
respondent shall seek such assistance and such information from the Police in
Malaysia at Bukit Puchong, Subang Jaya, as well as from the High Commission of
India at Kualalumpur. (S.Sethu Raja vs The Chief Secretary (2007 (5) MLJ 404).
iii. Detenue went to United Kingdom and his whereabouts
was not known. Subsequently Habeas Corpus Petition filed before the Bench.
Division Bench passed an order to repatriate the mortal from London (U.K.) to
India under the scheme named “Indian Community
Welfare Fund (ICWF)”. The poor family got justice through the great bench. (T.
Selvi -Vs- Union of India and others (H.C.P.(MD) No. 729 of 2012 order dated 27.11.2013).
iv. Yet another unfortunate
incident happened at Riyath, Saudi Arabia. A poor woman husband was working at
Riyath, Saudi Arabia. On 06.03.2017 the workman was fallen on the floor at the
time of working hours and then her husband became unconscious. Following the
illness of health her husband was admitted in a hospital but he died following
failure of medical treatment at hospital. The State Government as well as
Central Government failed to bring the body from abroad despite she made
several representation. The Madurai Bench came for rescue to the poor woman
after filing writ petition. Finally the mortal arrived to her native. (Santhi -Vs-The Union of India Ministry
of External Affairs (W.P.(MD).No.4260of 2017)
RIGHT TO EQUALITY
|
i. Uthapuram
village shot into prominence when a wall running 600 feet was erected to
divide the scheduled castes (SC) from the main village which forced them to
take a detour of more than two-and-a-half km. On October 1, 2008, as a
sequel to the demolition of the wall, more than 70 dalit houses were
attacked. Ironically, the reprisal was on a day before the 139th birthday
of Mahatma Gandhi, who had fought for the eradication of untouchability. Six
writ petitions were filed in the Madurai bench, seeking various reliefs
including providing adequate compensation to the affected. When the temple
festival for Mariamman and Sathiya Muthalamman was conducted during August,
2009, once again there was a dispute between the two communities of the
village. Writ of Mandamus was
filed to provide protection with para military forces to the writ petitioners
to worship the Peepal tree situated in natham poramboke in front of
Muthalamman Temple and directing the respondents to remove all the
disabilities imposed upon the writ petitioners as the members of Adi Dravidar
in the name of untouchability and restore their civil rights to enable them
to lead a dignified life, directing the fourth respondent to facilitate the
smooth transition in this regard. An agreement reached between the parties, the
scheduled caste people were allowed to enter the temples to give their
offerings on November 1, 2011. Superintendent of Police Madurai stated before
the High Court Bench that peace prevailed at the village after they mutually
agreed to bury the past. Disposing of the petitions, High Court Bench
directed the district administration and the S.P. to take all steps to ensure
peace and to implement the terms of settlement in letter and spirit so that
the strife between the two sections would be a thing of the past. Further held that any other claims made by other
members belonging to Scheduled Castes of Uthapuram Village claims also should
be entertained by District Collector and appropriate compensation should be
paid in terms of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. Furthermore the Bench observed that The
Uthapuram experience shows that if the will of the people is strong, they can
find solutions among themselves even in the absence of state intervention...
Ultimately, the Uthapuram message is very clear. It was a case of a wall
(caste) which divided but their will (power) united them. Murugan Vs State of Tamilnadu, represented by the Chief
Secretary (2012 (2) CTC 561)
|
ii.
The Madras high court Madurai bench allowed the Sivagangai Samasthana
Devasthanam and the joint commissioner of Hindu religious and charitable
endowments (HR&CE) department to conduct the Kandadevi temple festival in
Sivaganga district.
The festival shall be conducted with the participation of all the willing
persons from all the four groups as well as from all communities without any
discrimination. (Peri. Sornalingam Ambalam Vs The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & Others 2014(5)
CTC 113)
AFTER CONVERSION TO ISLAM A CITIZEN CAN CLAIM BACKWARD
STATUS
Before
Madurai Bench, issue was whether petitioner, classified as Backward Class, on
conversion to Muslim, can continue to claim status of Backward Class and
Whether Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) is correct in addressing
Collectors not to issue Backward Class community certificate to converted
Muslims. Bench held that a person
belonging to Hindu Backward Class community, on conversion to Islam, would get
benefit of Backward Class status. (MU. Aariffaa Versus The Secretary to the Government (2014 (1) CWC 695).
RIGHT TO GET EMPLOYMENT FOR VICTIM’S FAMILY
Madurai
Bench issued direction to District Collector, to provide appointment to
Petitioner who is the sister of deceased as per the provisions of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The
Bench held when a victim depend on the deceased the State has to offer
employment in the light of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995. (Sudha Versus State of
Tamil Nadu, represent by its Secretary to Home Department (CDJ 2016 MHC 1122
)
RIGHT TO HEALTH
i. The Madurai Bench contributed several regard
to health issues. The Madurai bench of
the Madras high court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs 28.37
lakh as compensation to the family of a woman who died in 2012 due to medical
negligence at a hospital in Kanyakumari district. Rukmani, was administered
nitrous oxide, better known as laughing gas, instead of oxygen while admitted
at Government Nagercoil Medical College and Hospital at Asaripallam. Initially interim
direction was issued for shifting the patient
from Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital to Christian Medical College Hospital,
Vellore when the deceased was alive. Bench held that the
Government hospitals run by the State and
the Medical Officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical
assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government
hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such
treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21
of the Indian Constitution. In the present case there was breach of the said
right to my deceased son guaranteed under Article 21 when he was denied timely
treatment at the 3rd Respondent Government hospital which was
approached even though his condition was very serious at that time and he was
in need of immediate medical attention. Since the said denial of the right of
my deceased son guaranteed under Article 21 was by officers of the State in
hospitals run by the State, the State cannot avoid its responsibility for such
denial of the constitutional right.( S. Ganesan Versus The Secretary to
Government, Health Department 2016 (7)
MLJ 755 )
ii. A
social activist prayed to direct the Government to provide MRI scan facilities to all district Government
hospital in the state of Tamil Nadu on free of cost to the patients living
below the poverty line throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. High Court Bench directed the state government to install
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners in government hospitals in all
district headquarters in the state within a year. The same social activist has sought an another direction to direct
the Government to provide portable drinking water and hot water to the patients
in all wards, direct the respondents to ensure the available of the doctors for
the patients for 24 hours by filling all existing vacancies, and to provide MRI
scan facility, and other infrastructure to the Government Headquarters
hospital, Ramanathapuram. The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued
direction to the State Government. (C. Anantha Raj & Another Versus State
of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department CDJ 2017 MHC 723).
IMPLEMENT THE AWARD PASSED BY THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
Division Bench directed the Government to
comply with the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission.
Direction was issued to pay compensation within period of 8 weeks. The Division
Bench also insisted the State to act quickly when recommendations are made State
Human Rights Commission (K.Shobana
- Vs- The State Human Rights Commission (2016 (1) MLJ 165).
RIGHT TO GET COMPENSATION IN ELECTROCUTION DEATH CASES
An agriculturist and his two bullocks were
died while cultivating in land after fallen Electricity Line on them. Madurai
Bench directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the loss
of her husband who died due to electrocution as well as the loss of bullock,
which also died due to electrocution. Bench held that the payment shall be
effected to the petitioner by means of demand draft drawn in favour of the
petitioner, within a period of eight weeks. (Nagammal Versus The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu
Generation & Distribution Corporation CDJ
2014 MHC 3991)
COMPNESATION TO SCAVENGER DEATH –OCCURRENCE EVEN TAKES PLACE
IN PRIVATE PLACE – BENCH DIRECTION WAS TAKEN UPTO SUPREME COURT
i. Sixty-nine-year-old P. Valaiyakka belonging to the Arunthathiyar community is all set to become the first person in the State to receive a compensation of Rs.10 lakh, fixed by the Supreme Court in Safai Karamchari Andholan’s case in 2014, for the death of her son due to asphyxiation while cleaning a septic tank in a residential house in Ramanathapuram Municipality. Our Bench held that in the light of the factual matrix and in view of the pathetic conditions of the petitioner's family, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in tune with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Safai Karamchari Andolen Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2014 (3) CTC 177, granting relief, on the basis of the representations of the petitioner, dated 19.09.2014 and 01.04.2015, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subsequently Government filed Appeal by stating that the Government is liable when deceased died in private places. This case issue reached upto Supreme Court and finally the victim’s family received compensation from the Government. (Valaiyakka -Vs the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & others (CDJ 2015 MHC 4636). The law on paying monetary compensation to family members of those who had died due to manual scavenging since 1993 got a further boost following the Madras High Court Bench direction. Allowing a writ petition filed by B. Chitra, whose husband Balakrishnan died while cleaning the septic tank of a private firm in Karur in December 2015, the Bench held that the compensation should be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of death till the date of realisation.
COMPENSATION TO A FOREIGN CITIZEN FAMILY
A Writ petition was sought a relief to pay a
just and reasonable amount as compensation to the bereaved family of
Mr.Canicius Fernando, a Sri Lankan who was shot dead by the outside Security
Warder II T.Devaraj, No.126 of Madurai Central Prison on 5.10.2007 in front of
the Central Prison Madurai. Writ petition was allowed and a direction is issued
to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.9,07,000/- to the wife and children of
the deceased Sri Lankan National Mr.Canicius Fernando, together with interest
at 6% per annum from 24.6.2008 till the date of actual payment. The payment
shall be made by the Government to the beneficiaries through the High
Commission of India at Colombo, in the same manner in which ex-gratia was paid
under G.O.Rt.No.223, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department, dated
10.10.2007. In this case Bench held that second writ is maintainable in certain case and principles of resjudicate
cannot be taken and further Court granted compensation with interest. (T.Sekaran Vs- State of Tamil Nadu (2010 WLR
851).
RIGHT TO GET SPEEDY JUSTICE
Two Dalit community people were brutally
murdered by Caste Hindus. The High Court Bench transferred the murder trial
from Madurai to Karur and further directed to complete the trial within the
period of three months. Following the direction the trial court Karur convicted
the accused. A special public prosecutor was appointed and a long pending case
came to an end. (Perumal Vs DSP,
Melur Crl.O.P.(MD).No: 8051 of 2007).
NO NEED PRIOR SANCTION FOR
POLICE CUSTODIAL DEATH CASE
|
A person named Masood (husband of
Hasanammal) was taken for interrogation by the Aralvoimozhi Police and
Kadayanallur Police. He has been taken thereafter to Keeriparai Police
Station under the guise of interrogation. He was tortured there and done away
with. The body was disposed of thereafter. This case has a chequered
history. Though the complaint has been registered in the year 2006, several
petitions have been filed before this Court by different parties and the
trial is yet to commence even after a decade. Even after the committal made
in the year 2011, the trial could not be completed till now. High Court Bench
while holding no prior sanction is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before
taking cognizance in a police custody death case, a direction is issued to
the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli to dispose of S.C.No.195
of 2011 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. (I. Easwaran Vs DSP CBCID, (CDJ 2015 MHC 4690)
|
RIGHT OF PRISONERS – RULING FOR GRANTING EMERGENCY LEAVE
Judiciary defined and interpreted the
term “death” subsequent to the cremation of the body. Judge interpreted “death”
means including the ceremonies as per religious customs after cremation of the
body. His lordship gives definition to death in his order Para No-7, “the words
appearing in Rule 6 Viz, “death” “serious illness” and wedding cannot be given
ordinary literal meaning. The word death would certainly include within the
fold, the ceremonies that a person is obliged to perform, if he happens to be a
believer. Otherwise if a plain and literal interpretation is given to the word
“death”; even a father, mother, son, daughter or brother would be able only to
pay last respects like a stranger to the family. The intention of Rule 6 cannot
be understood to be reducing the role of a father, son, mother or daughter to
that of a mere visitor paying last respects to a departed soul. Therefore, I am
of the view that a word “death” appearing in Rule obligations imposed by the
personal law of the party or custom, so that the purpose of grant of leave is
satisfied”. Finally the Hon’ble Judge directed the prison authorities to allow
the prisoner to attend the 40th day fathitha ceremonial of his deceased mother.
(Mohamed Iliyas Usmani -Vs- The
Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai in W.P.(MD).No: 11868 of 2011)”. Furthermore
in the same order the Hon’ble judge has given landmark ruling regarding of
another repeated objections raise by prison authorities for granting emergency
leave in Para No: 10, “One more objection raised by the respondent is that the
appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction in the Coimbatore bomb
blast case is pending before the Supreme Court. But there is no rule or
regulation which prohibits the grant of emergency leave merely on the ground
that an appeal filed by him is pending in a forum. The appeal filed by the
petitioner may result only in either of the three things viz., his getting
acquittal or his sentence getting reduced or getting confirmed. In
extraordinary cases, it may result in enhancement of penalty. The grant of
emergency leave will not certainly have a bearing upon any of the above results
which are possible to come out of the appeal pending on the file of the Supreme
Court. Therefore all the objections are over ruled”. Later, in S.Damotharan –Vs- The
Superintendent of Jail in W.P.(MD)No.4170 of 2013), the
division bench of Madras High Court Madurai bench upheld the same and affirmed
in its order that a pending appeal before Supreme Court cannot be a bar to
entertain an application for emergency leave.
There is no rule for granting
emergency leave to the remand prisoners in our state. If the remand prisoners
meet with any emergency situation they have to obtain interim bail from the
concerned court or from the Hon’ble High Court as emergency leave under the
Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code. The Hon’ble Madras High Court considered number of interim bail and
emergency leave petitions by considering the extraordinary situations such as
death, marriage, illness of health. In a special sitting on Saturday the
Hon’ble High Court Bench, Madurai granted interim bail to a remand prisoner to
perform his father’s final rites. (G.Surendar-Vs-State represented by
the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal and another in W.P.(MD).No: 9725 of 2014). Furthermore there
is norule framed by the Government for granting emergency leave to the
prisoners detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers Drug offenders Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
offenders, Sand offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982).
COMPENSATION TO POLICE TORTURE VICTIM
A
person was detained in police custody and physical torture was done by police
officials as well as private person. High Court observed that the offenders who
assaulted the petitioner’s son were not prosecuted by the State since the State
did not investigate the case properly in Crime Number: 81 of 2008 on the file
of the Poothalur Police Station. The Respondent No-4 had given much attention
to the Crime No.80 of 2008 and swiftly prepared Form-91, Exhibits No.6 and 7,
examined Prosecution witnesses further also he deposed as P.W-9 in C.C.No.76 of
2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvayaryu. But
the Respondent No.4 purposely omitted his duty and did not collect any evidence
in Crime No.81 of 2008 wherein the petitioner’s son was sustained injuries,
Further it is very pathetic to note that the two First Information Reports in
Crime Nos.80 of 2008 and 81 of 2008 were registered on the same day. Similarly
the Respondents No.1 to 3 also failed to render justice to the petitioner’s son.
The Respondents No.1 to 4 failed in their duty to provide justice to the
Petitioner’s son though the victim was suffered with injuries and the same
complaint was registered in Crime No.81 of 2008 on the file of the Poothalur
Police Station. The right to life and right to get justice is fundamental
rights to the citizen of this country under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Keeping the above distinction in mind, if we look at the facts of the
present case, it will be clear that the petitioner's son was seriously injured
and hence the Petitioner is entitled to get the compensation from the state as
vicarious liability. Further the petitioner’s son became victim of crime and he
is entitled for getting compensation also under the Victim Compensation Scheme
stipulated under the Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. Therefore, This Court comes to
conclusion that State is liable for payment of compensation to the Petitioner’s
son. Bench allowed
writ petition and the Respondents No-1 to 3 are directed to provide compensation
a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner's son named Selvaraj with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from 19.07.2010,
within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (Bhanumathi -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu (2017(1)CWC
616)
RIGHTS RELATED TO WOMEN – MAINTENANCE TO WIFE AND MINOR
CHILD
A
woman and minor child was denied maintenance by the trial court on the ground
wife has degree qualification and she would take care of the family. The High
Court Bench quoted that the United Nations is committed to the principle of
equality of men and women, meaning equality in their dignity and worth as human
beings as well as equality in their rights, opportunities and responsibilities.
In its work for the advancement of women, the entire United Nations system has
dedicated itself to ensuring the universal recognition, in law, of equality of
rights between men and women, and to exploring ways to given women, in fact,
equal opportunities with men to realize their human rights and fundamental
freedoms. Finally held the woman who has education
qualification also entitled to get maintenance for herself and minor child from
her husband. (Gomathi
Vs – P.Raja(2015(3) MWN Crl.416) )
RIGHTS RELATED TO WOMEN – MAINTENANCE TO WIFE –POWER OF 482
Madurai
Bench said High Court held even second revision is maintainable when
miscarriage of justice. Bench has got powers under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to interfere with the order of the lower Courts when there has
been a failure of the justice. In this case, there is miscarriage of justice as
the said orders render injustice to the petitioner by granting only a meagre
amount of Rs.400/- and Rs.800/- per month, when the respondent himself admitted
the salary as Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per month. In those
circumstances, as stated above this Court fixes the monthly maintenance at Rs.7,500/-(Rupees
Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) per month. (N. Rajalaxmi Versus Nallathambi CDJ 2013 MHC 146 )
RIGHT TO EDUCATION
Right
to Education is Fundamental Right as guaranteed in Article 21 of Constitution
of India. Bench held that the Educational authorities cannot keep certificate
as fixed deposit for nonpayment of pending due amount. Following the decision
number of students benefited. (S. Muthukamatchi vs The
Director of Technical Education (2013(1) CTC 595.
COMPENSATION FOR FAILURE OF SPEEDY JUSTICE – SECTION 357-A
OF CrPC
After
brutal murder of 15 year old child namely Aparna, the C.B.I officials have not
secured the accused after lapes of five years of registering case. The Madurai
High Court Bench directed the State to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the father of
victim since CBI police were not able to solve the murder. [Kalaikumar-Vs-State of Tamil Nadu
(Crl.O.P.(MD).No:3513 of 2015 order dated 22.06.2015).
COMPENSATION FOR ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT IN PRISON
Expressing shock over “serious violation of
rights,” the court blamed the Dindigul police as well as the lower court for
the fallacy. The State is the custodian of the fundamental rights of its
citizens and any breach thereof by its servants should be compensated only by
the State especially when there is no evidence on record to prove whether the
petitioner’s prosecution was an act committed by the officials with a mala fide
intention or was it a genuine mistake.” Bench also directed DGP to appoint a Superintendent of Police
to find out who had "maliciously" prosecuted the patient instead
of the original accused R Sathya in the case. In yet another case Bench directed Tamilnadu government to pay a
compensation of Rs two lakh each to five persons who were wrongly implicated in
a 2012 murder case and kept in prison for more than 90
days. Recently when a doctor was maliciously undergone NDPS case, the home
secretary was directed to pay compensation.
RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT
i. Writ Petitioners inter alia raised important questions of public interest as to whether sand quarrying had been done well beyond the stipulated permission granted affecting the normal course of river, supply of water for irrigation and for drinking purposes and what are the remedial measures to ensure the scientific sand quarrying. Commission was appointed consisting of (i) Mr.N.Seshasayee, Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; (ii) Dr.N.Chandrasekar, HOD, Center for Geo-Technology, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and (ii) Prof.M.Arunachalam, HOD, Sri Paramakalyani Center for Environmental Sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to file its report on 06.10.2010. The Bench directed that there shall be no sand mining/quarrying for five years from today in the entire stretch of Tamiraparani river including the quarry sites at Thirumalaikolunthupuram, Tholappanpanai, Kilpidagai Appankovil, Mukkani and Mangalakurichi. The veteran CPI leader R.Nallakannu also filed writ petition along with the batch. (M.Periyasamy -Vs-The State of Tamil Nadu W.P.(MD)No.11182 of 2010 dated : 02/12/2010)
ii. A Writ
Petition was filed and sought for direction to give adequate facilities, safety
and protection of the tourists’ public visiting the old Courtallam Falls,
Ayeraperi Village Panchayat, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District and
consequently forbearing the respondents hereby from allowing any illegal
activities against the public safety, life and comfort of publlic in the old
Courtallam Falls. Madurai Bench prohibits the use of oil, shampoos, soaps,
detergents, chemicals and shikakai, plastic items and washing of clothes in the
bath area of all the falls and sale of the said items are prohibited in
Courtallam area except for the personal use of the people who are natives of
Town Panchayat. The Tasmac Shop is located near the Falls area, it shall be
shifted away from the Falls area within fourty eight hours, in the interest of
the visiting public, especially, women and children and further issued various
directions. (R. Krishnasamy Vs The District Collector,
Tirunelveli 2014 (4) CTC 220).
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE
i. Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus filed to quash impugned order and consequently to direct the respondent to
grant permission for conducting public meeting and parade. Court mentioned that
every Citizen of India has been empowered with fundamental rights under
Part-III of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech
and expression. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees right to assemble peacefully and
without arms. It is to be seen in that context that such cherished rights
conferred by the framers of the Indian Constitution cannot be taken away by the
power vested on the Commissioner of Police in regulating any meeting under
Section 41 of the City Police Act. The very nature of power under Section 41 is
only to regulate any assembly and if there are no other difficulties, the
Commissioner of Police cannot be justified in totally prohibiting the rights of
Citizen. Therefore, in this context, the demand made by the petitioner
Association, if it is otherwise not objectionable and not inconsistent with any
provisions of Law, that in the name of regulating the assembly, the
Commissioner cannot totally ban any meeting. Even Section 41(2) of the City
Police Act authorizes the Commissioner to prohibit any assembly or meeting or
procession, only if it is necessary for the preservation of public peace and
public safety. High Court Bench permitted to hold a meeting on 15.08.2008
between 3.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M at Viragu Pettai Thiddal near Mattuthavani Bus
Stand as requested by them. If the respondent Police wants to provide any
security, it is left to them to provide such a security as may be necessary for
the smooth conduct of the meeting. (Manitha Neethi Pasarai, Represented by its
District President Vs The Inspector General of Police 2009 (1) MLJ 695) .
ii. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
allowed a petition to conduct an indefinite fast demanding that the Central
Government take steps to make Tamil the official language of the Court. The
Petitioner pleaded that the Centre invokes Article 348 (2) of the Indian
Constitution and Section 7 of the Indian Official Languages Act, in order to
make Tamil the High Court’s official language. (G. Bhagawath Singh Vs
The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City (W.P.(MD).No: 12628 of2017 dated
12.07.2017).
STATE CAN’T PREVENT TO FORM
FACT FINDING TEAM IN HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
Bench held NGOs cant be prevented from forming
fact finding to hold into violation of human rights issues. The Bench observed United
Nations principles and discussed various parallel enquires by National and
State Human Rights Commissions. (P.Sivakumar
Vs The District Collector, Ramnad (Crl.O.P.(MD).No: 12208 of 2011 dated 21.10.2011)
BANNING OF CELEBRATION OF GURUPOORJA – TO SAVE COMMAN MAN
RIGHT
The Bench started with these words, “MAHATMA
GANDHI” is the only leader, who has not been given caste colour. It is very
unfortunate, invariably, all other leaders, one way or other, are identified
with the castes and religious. All these tall leaders are sought to be reduced
as caste leaders, which, they would not have dreamt of during their life time.
During these celebrations, volunteers of communal outfits/organization/parties,
travel in vehicles, in large numbers and cause a lot of disturbances, when the
vehicles pass through the villages belonging to other communities. Volunteers
raise slogans to insult other communities loudly and a number of violent
incidents occurred in the last three years - because of these celebrations, the
arrival and assembly of people/volunteers create law and order problem leading
to loss of precious lives, injuries to the people, damage to the properties and
communal tension. Assembling of people in a surcharged situation would create
law and order problem. Even small incident
may explode as a big problem if the
so-called community leaders or political leaders want to felicitate/honour
their great leaders, they can do the same, without visiting the memorials -
they can do social service by feeding the poor and helping the orphanages. S.
Sivakumar & Others Versus The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Home Secretary
( 2013 (5) CTC 695).
COMPENSATION TO POLICE CUSTODIAL DEATH
Bench
has issued number of directions to State Government for payment of compensation
in custodial death case. Petitioner’s
husband was taken into inquiry and he died after physical torture of police
officials. High Court Bench held the petitioner had lost her husband, at the young age of 25 years and the difficulties
in bringing up the minor children, this Court is of the considered view that
the amount claimed is reasonable and in the light of the Judgments of the
Supreme Court stated supra, a Mandamus is issued directing the Respondents to
pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Writ Petitioner in addition to Rs.1,00,000/-
already paid as ex-gratia. Out of the said sum, the Respondents are directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in any one of the Nationalised Banks under fixed
deposit, renewable once in three years, till the minor children attains
majority. The Writ Petitioner being the mother/guardian is permitted to
withdraw the accrued interest from the deposit. The Respondents are directed to
pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Writ Petitioner.
(Priya Vs Home Secretary, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr) 462)
POLICE ENCOUNTER DEATH- POWER OF SESSEION JUDGE –
DISCUSSED
Bench
held that Sessions Judge has got power to issue direction to Head of Department
of Police to transfer investigation to any competent officer irrespective of
his cadre as Head of Police Department may deem fit – But, such officer to whom
investigation is transferred shall be higher in rank than officer, who had
headed police party, which was involved in encounter. Reference was answered by
High Court Bench. Reference Case [MD]
No. 1 of 2015 In the matter of reference made by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli -Esakkiammal Versus State by
Inspector of Police, CB CID, Tirunelveli CDJ 2015 MHC 7364
FAIR INVESTGATION IS FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
Bench considered a pathetic case of unnatural
death of a poor woman in Police custody. After considering the principles laid
down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SCW 61 directed the State
Government to pay compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs, including Rs. 1 Lakh already
awarded by the order of the State Government to the family of the victim. Furthermore
transferred the investigation to CBCID which resulted trial court found police
officials guilty later. High Court held fair investigation is part of human
rights. (Henri Tiphagne v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009, 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 313).
STATE HAS TO PAY
COMPENSATION – WHEN FAIL TO PROTECT CITIZEN
On the fateful day
(20 May 2009), Irulaiya was proceeding to Madurai and he was travelling in a
bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. When the bus reached
Thiruppuvanam in Sivagangai District, at about 02.00 p.m., three individuals
belonging to Viduthalai Siruthaigal Party, threw petrol bombs to the bus. The
bomb blast caused multiple injuries on the body of Irulaiya and he was admitted
in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Subsequently, on 23 May 2009,
Irulaiya succumbed to the injuries.
According to the petitioners, the death took place on account of the
negligence of police officers, who were entrusted with the task of preserving
law and order. High Court Bench held that the
people of this country are supreme. We are all accountable to the people and
state was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs only] to
the petitioners within a period of two months. Ganesan &
Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Government
of Tamil Nadu 2012 (2) CTC 848)
CONCLUSION:
While
delivering verdicts the Madurai Bench protected historical monuments Viz,
Keelavalavu and Aanaimalai jain bed hillock. The Bench rendered several full
bench verdicts related to definition of victims in S. Ganapathy Vs N.Senthilvel
2016(3)MLJ (Cr)641. The Bench answered an important issue when reference made under Section
395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Madurai
Bench protected fundamental human rights Viz, Right to life, Right to clean
Environment, Right to equality, Right to dignity, Right to education, Right to
Know, Right to Shelter, Right to Speedy justice etc., The Right to
choice of eating particular type of food is also significant issue in Madurai
Bench. It is pertinent to mention here that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.07.2017 extended to all of India the Madurai Bench
order that put on hold the Centre’s notification banning sale and purchase of
cattle from animal markets for slaughter. The bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice JS Khehar and Hon’ble Justice
DY Chandrachud said “Needless to say that the interim direction issued by the
Madurai bench of the Madras high court shall continue and extend to the entire
country.” The Madurai bench of the Madras high court has been doing commendable
job through court proceedings, mediation, lok adalalt and legal aid. It is
pertinent to recollect my memory that when all the judges had gone to New Delhi
for a function the then administrative Judge constituted a division bench at
New Delhi and the said bench passed an order from New Delhi and released a
detenue by way of granting emergency leave to attend his mother’s funeral. The
Madurai Bench has contributed several ways for upholding human rights in the
short period of 13 years.
(Written by R. Karunanidhi,
practicing Advocate at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court)
Contact address:
R. KARUNANIDHI,
Advocate
Plot No: 12A/59, Muthu
Vinayaga Nagar
Ulaganeri
Near High Court Madurai
Bench
Uthangudi Post
Madurai – 625 107
Mobile - +91-9994513250
Comments
Post a Comment