Writ Petition Seeking Disciplinary Action Against Police Officers Involved Custodial Violence Is Not Maintainable: Madras High Court Orders Police Inquiry Instead

The Madras High Court had held that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable at the instance of a third party (victim in this case) seeking disciplinary action against police officers who are allegedly involved in brutality and custodial violence. The Court relied on judgments which say that Writ Petitions by third parties are not maintainable on the service side.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a person claiming that he was tortured by the police officers falsely alleging that he had stolen the walkie-talkie of the police, seeking departmental and/or disciplinary action against the police officers concerned.

The Bench of Justice P. Dhanabal held, "Therefore, in view of the above said judgment, it is clear that the petitioner herein, being a 3rd party, cannot seek direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to take disciplinary action against the respondents 5 to 13".

However, considering the seriousness of the allegations raised against the police officers, the Court ordered an enquiry by the Superintendent of Police to take action if any violation of the rules is found. The Court also directed that an action taken report be submitted to the Court within a period of three months.

Advocate R. Karunanithi appeared for the petitioner while Government Advocate M. Sakthikumar and Senior Advocate M. Ajmal Khan appeared for the respondents.

The petitioner contended that after he had applied for a Passport, he received a call from A. Mukkulam Police Station to attend the verification process, which he completed and returned to his village. On the same day, he was informed by another individual that the 5th respondent Sub-Inspector of Police had visited him and alleged that his walkie-talkie was stolen by the petitioner. The 5th respondent Sub-Inspector forced them to come to the A. Mukkulam Police Station, when they were abused, manhandled, and assaulted. "At that time, the respondents 5 to 13 who were present in the police station jointly used third degree methods", the petitioner contended. After this, the petitioner was taken to a hospital and an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 294 (b), 353 and 427 of the IPC. He filed the Writ Petition seeking action against the police officer involved in alleged violence against him.

The Court noted the petitioner in the case is a 3rd party and cannot maintain the Writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the service side, seeking a writ of mandamus is to take action against the employee or officials.

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the directions mentioned above.

Cause Title: Thavakannan v. .The Secretary to Government & Ors. (W.P.(MD).No.6540 of 2020)

Click here to read/download Order