Vicarious Liability Of State On Violation Of Fundamental Rights Of An Individual

DATE OF ORDER
29 MARCH,2023

BENCH
THEHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICER.VIJAYAKUMAR

PARTIES
PETITIONER: (name not disclosed)
RESPONDENT:

1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Home Secretary
Home Department
St.George Fort, Secretariat
Chennai 9

2.The Director General of Police
Office of the Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Road
Mylapore, Chennai 4

3.The District Collector
Collectorate, Kanyakumari District

4.The Superintendent of Police
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Kanyakumari District

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
District Crime Branch (DCB)
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District

6.The Inspector of Police
Thiruvattar Police Station
Kanyakumari District
(Crime No.91 of 2010)

7.T.Rajkumar @ Kumaradass

8.S.Loyola Ignatius

9.Uma

10.Rajarethinam

SUBJECT

In the present case, Madras High Court has, with reference to judicial precedents, vehemently set the liability of State of to compensate an individual when there has been violation of Article 21 by the authorities covered under its meaning. The State will be vicariously liable in cases where any actions by the authorities under it violates the fundamental rights of an individual.

OVERVIEW

1. The Petitioner of this case has filed a writ petition of mandamus under Article 226 seeking compensation of Rs.1 Crore from the Respondent 1.
2. The compensation is against the loss of reputation and respect of the petitioner due to false case foisted upon her.
3. The Petitioner and her father shifted to a rental house after executing a lease deed 29.09.2009. However, possessions was bot handed over to them despite paying a certain amount. Due to the said dispute, the 7threspondent and his wife wanted to wreck vengeance and lodged a complaint before the 6th respondent Police alleging that the petitioner and herf ather have refused to vacate the house.
4. Consequently, police officials ( respondent 8 to 10) made an enquiry and asked them to vacate the house.
5. The issue arose when on 16.02.2010,8th respondent filed a case against the petitioner under provisions of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 on the complaint of a person called Sasikumar. The chargesheet was filed and the petitioner was detained for 13days.
6. Petitioner filed a complaint against the false case she was charged in. Deputy Superintendent of Police ( Respondent5) made a detailed enquiry in which it was found that the case was a false one and was foisted against her due to personal animosity.
7. The Petitioner had also filed a petition before the High Court to quash the criminal charges against her. Based on the report by DSP, High Court quashed the criminal charges against the petitioner on 26.06.2015.

ARGUMENS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER

The learned counsel of the petitioner contended thatfrom the enquiry report made by the Respondent 5 it is clear that the petitioner was not involved in any immoral traffic. The report clearly states that the complaint against the petitioner was filed by Sasikumar who under Sec 164 of Cr.P.C made a statement before the Judicial Magistrate that he was involved in immoral traffic. When he was taken to the police station, he was made to sign on blank papers. He did not know about the intentions of taking his sign. Hence, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was wrongly dragged in a criminal case which has caused serious damage to her reputation in the society. The primary suffering of the petitioner is breach of privacy through widespread newspapers and magazines. The counsel relied on the judgement of the D.K Basu vs State of Bengal (1997) and other cases to contend that petitioner is entitled for compensation when police authorities violates the personal liberty, privacy and reputation of the petitioner.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT

The learned counsel of the respondent contended before the court that there was no biasness or personal interest involved of the police officials. They acted within the scope of their work which is evident from the fact that when the officials got complaint by Sasikumar they went to the petitioner’s house for an enquiry and found certain incriminating materials. On the basis of which further actions were taken against the petitioner. The Petitioner filed a complaint against false case after 7 months. Considering the complaint, an enquiry was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was the this report which pleased the HC to quash the charge sheet against the petitioner. The Petitioner has in no way proved to establish that the owner of the rental house in which she lived were involved anywhere in the criminal proceedings initiated against her. The criminal charges against the petitioner were initiated because of the complaint by Sasikumar. Hence, the police officials were duty bound to take action. There was no malafide intention against thr petitioner. The counsel contended that the petitioner was trying to link her personal animosity with the criminal proceedings without any evidence. Also, she is trying to put allegations on the police for acting with malafide intentions just on the ground that the criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court. She has no evidence of malicious prosecution and thus the State cannot be made vicariously liable.

JUDGEMENT

1. The court primarily considered the violation of petitioner’s privacy and personal liberty due to the false case foisted against her. The news on newspapers and magazines caused loss to her reputation as well as damaged the societal image of her father.
2. The single judge bench made reference to the case of Alarmelu Mangai vs Secretary of State of Tamil Nadu (2010) wherein liability was imposed on State to compensate the victim for infringement right to privacy under Article 21and public humiliation caused to the actions of the police authorities.
3. Court held that the police authorities cannot take benefit of the enquiry report made by respondent 5. The police officials involved in foisting false case against the petitioner cannot be set free.
4. It was founded that no actions were taken against the police officials who were found guilty in the enquiry report.
5. State is vicariously liable for the acts done by the police officials which has resulted into violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the petitioner. The loss of reputation and infringement of personal liberty of the petitioner needs to be compensated by the State.
6. Court highlighted the case of K. S. Puttaswamy vs Union Of India(2010)in which Article 21 was declared as an intrinsic part of fundamental rights.
7. Court allowed the petitioner to receive compensation of Rs2,00,000 from Respondent 1.

CONCLUSION

The present case highlights the core value of right to privacy and personal liberty. From cases to cases, judiciary has been actively recognizing and upholding the importance of right to privacy of an individual. As it was seen in this case, how a false case ruined the reputation of an unmarried woman, at times like this it becomes necessary for judiciary to step in and provide the remedy to secure the privacy of an individual. Article 21 is an intrinsic part of the constitution and no breach of it can be tolerated.

Learn the practical aspects of Criminal Law Drafting HERE, IBC HERE, CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, NDPS Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE