State Govt Directed To Pay Rs 25 Lakhs To Victim For Deplorable Language Used By Police In FIR: Madras HC
📝 Background of the Case
The matter came before the Madras High Court where it was alleged that the police officers, while registering an FIR, had used highly derogatory, abusive, and demeaning language against the victim.
Such conduct was found to be not only unprofessional but also a gross violation of the victim’s dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life with dignity).
The Court noted that the police is expected to act as a neutral law enforcement agency and not as a source of humiliation or oppression.
⚖️ Court’s Reasoning
Violation of Article 21 (Right to Dignity):
The Court held that the language used in the FIR was uncivilized and humiliating, amounting to an attack on the victim’s constitutional right to live with dignity.
The State is vicariously liable for the misconduct of its police officers since they act under State authority.
Public Law Remedy of Compensation:
The Court directed the State Government to pay ₹25 lakhs compensation to the victim as a public law remedy (not damages in tort, but constitutional compensation).
Responsibility of Police Officers:
The Court criticized the police machinery for acting irresponsibly and ordered the Director General of Police to ensure proper sensitization of officers while drafting FIRs and handling victims.
📜 Relevant Case Laws Cited & Applied
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
SC held that the State is liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights by its officials.
Compensation is a constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
SC laid down detailed guidelines against police atrocities and held that custodial torture/inhuman treatment is violative of Article 21.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141
SC awarded compensation for illegal detention, holding that public law remedy exists independent of private tort remedies.
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178
SC reiterated that monetary compensation can be awarded for infringement of fundamental rights caused by police misconduct.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Privacy Case)
Expanded Article 21, holding that dignity and respect are inseparable aspects of right to life.
🏛️ Madras High Court’s Holding
The State Government was directed to pay ₹25,00,000 (25 lakhs) to the victim within a specified time.
Strong observations were made against the police, holding that use of derogatory language in official documents like FIRs is unconstitutional.
Court directed DGP to issue guidelines so that FIRs are recorded in neutral, professional, and dignified language.
🔑 Key Takeaway
Police officers must act with neutrality and dignity while dealing with victims or accused.
Derogatory or humiliating language in FIRs is unconstitutional, as it directly violates Article 21.
The High Court has the power under Article 226 to grant compensation against the State for misconduct by its officials.
👉 In short, the Madras HC reaffirmed that the dignity of a citizen cannot be compromised even in an FIR, and the State is financially accountable for such unconstitutional actions of its officers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments