6 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Mar 5, 2026 10:27 AM ISTThe Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench clarified that the human rights commission’s findings should not undermine the prosecution’s case before the criminal court. (Image generated using AI)Madras High Court news: Drawing a clear ‘Laxman rekha’ between criminal proceedings and human rights adjudication, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) directing the state to pay compensation to a man who was illegally detained and assaulted by police officers in Kanniyakumari district.A bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi was hearing a batch of petitions filed by police officers challenging the SHRC order that awarded Rs 6 lakh compensation to one Selvaraj for violation of his human rights and dismissed the petitions.“Even when the complainant before the Commission is an accused in the criminal case, the complaint can be entertained when gross human rights violation is evident ex-facie; even in such cases, the eventual findings of the Commission cannot cast any cloud on the prosecution’s case before the criminal court. If this laxman rekha is not kept in view, while the act of taking cognisance may not be faulted, the report may be set aside,” the court said on February 27.Also Read | ‘Mischievous political spin’: Madras High Court raps Tamil Nadu minister over Thiruparankundram Deepam remarksThe court emphasised that while human rights bodies can examine violations arising out of police action, they must maintain a Laxman rekha so that their findings do not interfere with criminal proceedings before courts.‘Laxman rekha’ between courts, human rights bodiesExplaining the limits of the human rights commission’s jurisdiction, the bench observed that even when a criminal case is pending before a court, the commission may still inquire into allegations of human rights violations.However, the commission must focus only on the issue of breach of human rights and not delve into the details of the criminal investigation, the court cautioned while discussing the principle of sub-judice and the commission’s powers.The judges clarified that the commission’s findings should not undermine the prosecution’s case before the criminal court.Merely because a victim of human rights violation has resorted to criminal prosecution, he cannot be disabled from approaching the human rights commission.The human rights commission can award compensation and recommend disciplinary action against the erring officials.On the other hand, the criminal court can hand out punishment. Justices G R Swaminathan and R Kalaimathi issued the order on February 27.Writ pleas dismissedHolding that the SHRC had acted within its jurisdiction, the bench dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the police officials and confirmed the Commission’s order awarding compensation.“The State Human Rights Commission was right in fastening liability,” the court concluded.Background of disputeThe case stemmed from a complaint filed by Selvaraj, a businessman from Kanniyakumari district, before the SHRC.According to the complainant, he had a civil property dispute with his brother and nephew regarding certain commercial properties, including the “Anandha Bhavan Hotel” at Marthandam.The dispute intensified over the demand that he return Rs 20 lakh allegedly paid by his nephew V Anand, which Selvaraj refused.Selvaraj alleged that in May 2019, then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) A C Karthikeyan summoned him and pressured him to repay the amount.When he declined, police personnel allegedly dragged him from his premises on May 30, 2019, assaulted him and detained him illegally, before taking him to police stations and hospitals.He was later hospitalised with head injuries and discharged on June 8, 2019.Also Read | Madras High Court restrains unlawful broadcast of ‘The Kerala Story 2’ by internet providers, cable TV operatorsPolice version rejectedThe police authorities denied the allegations and claimed that Selvaraj had been arrested in connection with a case registered in 2019 involving the illegal storage and sale of gutka products.They contended that his injuries were self-inflicted when he hit his head against a steel bar inside a police vehicle to avoid custody.However, the human rights commission rejected this explanation.The high court also found the police version “improbable”, noting that Selvaraj, a senior citizen, had suffered injuries consistent with assault.Medical records, including the accident register, wound certificate and discharge summary, corroborated his claim that he had sustained injuries during police custody.SHRC order and reliefOn September 1, 2022, the SHRC directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs 6 lakh compensation to Selvaraj.The commission further permitted the government to recover Rs 3 lakh from DSP Karthikeyan, and Rs 1 lakh each from three police personnel involved in the incident.The order was challenged by the police officials before the high court.Also Read | ‘Absolute abuse of power’: Madras High Court quashes order to collect ‘stigmatic’ data from studentsCourt finds police responsibleAfter examining the evidence, the bench concluded that Selvaraj had indeed suffered human rights violations at the hands of police personnel.The court observed that the police had implicated him in a criminal case and detained him in circumstances that violated his dignity, liberty and personal safety, which are protected under the Constitution.The judges also noted that CCTV footage from the police station was not produced, which warranted an adverse inference against the police.Discharge in criminal case notedThe court further took note that Selvaraj was subsequently discharged from the criminal case on November 11, 2024, by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Nagercoil.This development reinforced the conclusion that the criminal case had been wrongly pursued against him.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd