The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission directing a woman Sub-Inspector to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for assaulting a woman in custody.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar dismissed the writ petition filed by Mrs. Magitha Anna Christy, holding that she had failed to contest the allegations before the Commission despite repeated opportunities.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The petitioner was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Guduvancherry Police Station in Kanchipuram District when a complaint was filed against her in 2018.
The complainant alleged that she was brutally assaulted inside the police station, beaten with hands and a lathi, and that her valuables and cash were snatched. She further claimed that she was sent to prison without being given proper legal assistance.
The Human Rights Commission took the complaint on file and issued notice to the officer. Although the officer entered appearance through counsel, she did not file any counter statement. The Commission granted multiple opportunities, but no reply or evidence was submitted on her behalf.
Meanwhile, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and produced medical records and photographs showing visible injuries.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
What the Commission Found
The Commission examined medical documents issued by the Prison Hospital and photographs showing injuries on the complainant’s knees, hand, leg and fingers.
In its order, the Commission observed:
“All the allegations of the complainant are supported by medical evidence and photographs, which substantiates the authenticity of the complaint.”
It further noted that police officials are empowered only to arrest and proceed according to law, and that assaulting a person in custody amounts to a violation of basic rights.
The Commission recorded that the complainant had suffered serious violations of her right to safety and dignity. It accepted her version in full, especially in the absence of any rebuttal from the officer.
Based on these findings, the Commission awarded ₹5,00,000 as compensation and recommended severe disciplinary action against the officer.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Arguments Before the High Court
Before the High Court, counsel for the officer argued that during examination before the Commission, the complainant had expressed willingness to withdraw the complaint upon payment of ₹3.5 lakh. This, it was argued, showed that the complaint was motivated by money.
However, the Bench was not convinced.
The judges noted that the serious allegations of assault and abuse of power had remained completely unchallenged before the Commission. The officer had neither filed a counter nor produced relevant records such as the remand report, despite specific directions.
The Court observed that once notice had been served and several opportunities were given, the officer could not later question the conclusions drawn by the Commission.
Court’s Observations
The Bench took note of what it described as the officer’s conduct in ignoring the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission.
The Court made it clear that a writ court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not lightly interfere with factual findings, especially where a party has chosen not to contest the case at the appropriate stage.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
The judges remarked that the failure to respond to serious allegations could not be brushed aside.
Decision
Holding that this was not a fit case for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The order of the Human Rights Commission awarding ₹5 lakh compensation and recommending disciplinary action was allowed to stand. No costs were imposed.
Case Title: Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission & Anr.
Case No.: W.P. No. 14267 of 2021
Decision Date: February 2026
