K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY & ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1149 · Decided: 16-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 1149 
K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Writ of 
mandamus by petitioners seeking independent investigation 
A 
B 
by an independent agency like CBI or Special Investigation C 
Team (SIT) into the incident of alleged beating of students of 
law college by miscreants for initiation of criminal proceedings 
against the guilty police personnel and others - Petitioners' 
organization had filed complaint with National Human Rights 
Commission against erring police officials since State Human D 
Rights Commission (SHRC) refused to entertain the same -
Petitioners' alleging their harassment by the police and 
registration of false cases against them - Held: The Police 
and the State should have addressed the matter with great 
concern and promptitude but it was not done - At this distant E 
point of time, it is not necessary to hand over the investigation 
to CBI or to SIT - Criminal cases have been registered· and 
charge-sheets are filed and departmental action was also 
initiated against the police personnel and punishment has 
been imposed -Directions issued to the Metropolitan F 
Magistrate to dispose of the cases relating to the Law College 
incident expeditiously - Highlighting the value of human 
rights, the State asked to fill up the vacant post of Chairperson, 
SHRC. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
. 
HELD: 1.1. By a perusal of the Status Report and 
other materials, video clippings and report of the 
1149 
G 
H 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20141 7 S.C.R. 
A Commission of Inquiry, the matter was not proceeded 
with seriousness with which it ought to have been 
proceeded with. Main accused was arrested only after the 
matter was brought to the notice of this Court and only 
after the order was passed by this Court and was 
8 subsequently released on bail. Likewise in two criminal 
cases charge-sheets are yet to be taken on file and some 
of the accused are yet to be apprehended and trial is yet 
to commence. [Para 14] [1158-D-G] 
1.2. As regards the entrustment of the matter for 
C further investigation to CBI/SIT such order cannot be 
passed as a matter of routine merely because the party 
has levelled allegations against the local police. The 
extra-ordinary power in handing over investigation to CBI 
must be exercised cautiously and in exceptional 
D circumstances. [Para 15] [1158-G-H; 1159-A] 
E 
West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of 
Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., 2010 (2) SCR 979: 
(2010) 3 sec 571 - referred to. 
1.3. Legal education has a direct impact on the 
prestige of the legal profession. It is a matter .of concern 
that such an unfortunate incident should have happened 
within the precincts of Law College, Chennai which has 
produced many eminent lawyers and legal luminaries. 
F The matter should have been addressed by the police 
and the State with great concern and promptitude. 
Though the matter was not proceeded in the way in 
which it should have been proceeded with at this distant 
point of time, it is not necessary to hand over the 
G investigation to CBI or to SIT. The reason being criminal 
cases have been registered and charge-sheets are also 
filed and departmental action was also initiated against 
the police personnel and punishment t.hough may be 
nominal was imposed on those po.lice personnel. Since 
' 
H 
K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF 
1151 
TAMIL NADU 
charge-sheets in all three cases have already been filed 
A 
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, one of which is 
already taken on file. [Para 16] [1159-G-H; 1160-A-C] 
1.4. Having regard to the benevolent objects of the 
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the effective 
mechanism for redressal of grievances of the citizens 
8 
against human rights violations, the office of Chairperson 
Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission cannot be 
allowed to remain vacant for a long time, due to non-
availability of suitable candidates. State of Tamilnadu has. 
always shown zero tolerance towards human rights 
C 
violations and has always sent clear message of its 
commitment towards protection of human rights. There 
is no reason as to why the post of Chairperson, SHRC 
which is to be headed by a person who has been the 
Chief Justice of a High Court should remain vacant for 
D 
more than three years. Pending the St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.