Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu
National
The Hindu Bureau

SHRC recommends compensation of ₹1 lakh in a case of police excess in Tirunelveli

The State Human Rights Commission on Monday recommended the government to pay a compensation of ₹1 lakh to a complainant in a case of police excess in Tirunelveli district.

SHRC member D. Jayachandran also recommended the government to recover the sum from Inspector of Police S. Velkani attached to Tirunelveli town police station and sought disciplinary proceedings against her.

According to Mohamed Kaniammal, wife of Althaf Hussain of Vazhukku Odai, she had a dispute with a neighbour over the construction of a compound wall between their houses and installation of a CCTV camera.

When she installed a CCTV camera in her house, the neighbour objected following which the inspector "forcefully removed" it. A complaint was lodged with Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. He had permitted her to reinstall the CCTV camera.

Meanwhile, Mr. Hussain sent a complaint alleging that the policewoman was acting in favour of their neighbour.

On December 21, 2019, the inspector, along with other policemen “trespassed into the complainant’s house” and used abusive language and further assaulted her, the complainant alleged.

She was produced before a Judicial Magistrate and after she was let on bail, she was admitted in the government hospital. The respondent denied all the allegations against her and contended the complainant had spread defamatory comments against her in social media.

After hearing both sides, the SHRC observed: "Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of both the parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the allegation against the 1st respondent (Inspector of Police) was categorically proved by the complainant" about the incident.

The 1st respondent had failed to follow the procedures laid down in law in arresting the complainant and hence had violated human rights of the complainant and also the guidelines issued by the NHRC and SHRC and the judgment of the Supreme Court, it observed.

As for other respondents in the case, it emerged that they were doing official or personal work and were not involved in the incident.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.