The Madras High Court has directed the CRPF to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to a woman for infringement of her right to privacy and the ordeal of public humiliation meted out to her by the action of the officials.
“Merely because the petitioner (the woman) does not have a male escort, that does not give a licence to the respondents to barge into a house and make a public humiliation of the petitioner, that too, in the presence of her minor children. The incalculable damage to her reputation will have haunting memories to her children in future. It must not only be strongly condemned, but the present order should serve as a deterrence against similar action in future by the respondents,” Justice K. Chandru observed in his order.
In her petition, Alarmelu Mangai, a postgraduate in mathematics, was married to N. Govindasamy, a CRPF constable, posted at Tripura. They had three children. She was living alone with her three children in the CRPF quarters. She knew one Bagawan, her husband's relative, who was also serving in the CRPF. Bagawan invited her for his daughter's birthday on January 23, 2004. She participated with her three children. While so, a team of local police personnel, Thangadurai, Inspector of Police, Tank Factory police station, Avadi, and some CRPF personnel, led by S.K.Dey (Subedar Major), Inspector of Police, CRPF, entered the house. They abused her and charged that she was having an illicit intimacy with Mr.Bagawan. She along with her three children and Mr.Bagawan along with his three children were taken to the Tank Factory Police Station at midnight under the guise of an enquiry. However, they were set free around 2 a.m.
She contended that after the incident she was humiliated. Her husband abandoned her.
Mr. Justice Chandru said when the children of the petitioner and the host were found in the house at the time of inspection, those who went for check could have safely left the house rather than abusing and insulting not only Mr. Bagawan, but also assaulting the woman. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act nowhere contemplated such a power to enter the residential quarters just before midnight and harass any home maker and to further give a false statement and dragging her to a local police station for so-called questioning. The stand of the Additional DIG of Police, CRPF himself was that no case was registered as it was a trivial incident. “Even assuming without admitting that there was some relationship between the petitioner and the said Bagawan, that does not empower the respondents to do moral policing and snoop into the private affairs of individuals.”
That there was a complaint from neighbours was not borne out by records.
