The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has recommended to the Tamil Nadu government to pay a compensation of ₹1 lakh to a doctor of a private hospital in Chennai, who was arrested by a police inspector in violation of prescribed norms.
SHRC member D. Jayachandran held that the sum of ₹1 lakh be recovered from Inspector Nizhavazhagan and recommended initiation of departmental action against him.
Sai Surender of Nungambakkam in Chennai, in his complaint to the SHRC, submitted he was an associate consultant in emergency medicine at a private hospital on Old Mahabalipuram Road. On September 26, 2013, Mr. Nizhavazhagan, who was serving in the Viruthamput police station, entered the emergency unit of the hospital and arrested him without producing the arrest memo in connection with a family dispute.
In his counter, the inspector said he had taken action on a private complaint made by the doctor’s father-in-law before the Judicial Magistrate in Vellore under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The SHRC member, however, pointed out that the Madras High Court had in the Ramaiah vs State case framed guidelines for registration of FIRs, wherein it said that in domestic disputes and dowry complaints the police can arrest the accused only when they refused to cooperate with investigation. This was not followed in the instant case. Besides, the doctor was not allowed to contact his advocate, which amounted to violation of human rights as per the Supreme Court judgment in the D.K. Basu case.
He added that when the doctor’s mother was taken into custody, no woman police officer was present.
The member observed that a large number of complaints pertaining to human rights violations were in the area of abuse of police powers, particularly those of arrest and detention. Hence, it has become necessary to prescribe guidelines regarding arrest while not unduly curtailing the power of the police.
Since the complainant suffered humiliation at the hands of the police, which “amounted to violation of his rights to personal, liberty and dignity,” he had to be compensated, the SHRC member said.
