Madras High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
huge number many police personnel chasing the crowd and started to fire gun towards the crowd, who were standing near Kalankarai Railway Station, Chennai. Thereafter, due to fear, the petitioner and his father went inside the house and locked themselves in. However, the police had broken the doors and had trespassed the house and pulled out the petitioner and his son from the house and the petitioner's son was brutally attacked by the police persons and as such he sustained injury in his left eye. Later, he filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5091 of 2017, seeking to direct the concerned officials to appoint a team of expert Ophthalmologist and provide proper treatment and to pay Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation to his son for having lost his left eye. This Court, while disposing of the said petition, observed that it is the duty of the State Government to provide treatment and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for claiming compensation and hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.3.On a perusal of the counter filed by the 5th respondent and also on the submissions made by Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner revealed that the petitioner's son had participated in the protest to 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis lift the ban of Jallikattu. During the protest, among the agitators, there was an incident that had taken place by pelting stones, due to which the petitioner's son was sustained injury on his left eye and lost his eye vision. In fact, the petitioner was admitted in the Eye hospital due to the injury cause by unknown agitators who were pelting stones. 4.On a perusal of the records, it is also revealed that the petitioner's son sustained injury by hurling stones by the unknown agitators on 23.01.2017 at about 3.00 P.M. at Loyd's Road. The petitioner is residing at Triplicane. But the petitioner's son sustained injury on his left eye at Loyds Road. It is just opposite to the Marina Beach where the protest was held. Therefore, another version of the petitioner cannot be accepted since there was no lathi charge by the police personnel on the petitioner's son. However, now the only issue to decide is whether the petitioner's son is entitled for the compensation when he participated in the Jallikkattu protest and sustained injury due to the stones pelted by the agitators or not. To decide this issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order of this Court dated 02.08.2016 in WP No.40800 of 2002 in the case of “S.Krishnaswamy Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, The Secretary to the Government, Home 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Department and 3 Others”. This Court dealt with the case where an injured was travelling in the bus while there was agitation and the agitators had pelted big stones on the roof of the bus and thereafter, directly hit the persons. Due to which, the petitioner therein, sustained lost of entire eye vision on his left eye. He also sustained fracture at his left cheek. He filed a petition seeking compensation. This Court referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of “Smt.Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi Admn. Through the Lt.Governor” reported in ILR 1996 Delhi 754, where, the husband of the petitioner therein was killed by a mob, which surrounded a train at Tughlakabad Station, forced out about 25-26 Sikh passengers and lynched them and in the writ petition filed for compensation, the widow was paid with compensation. It is relevant to extract the following portion of the said judgment: “1. It is the State's obligation to create conditions where rights of individuals or group of persons under Article 21 are not and cannot be violated. It is for the State and its functionaries to evolve methods and strategies to ensure protection of life and liberty of a person or persons which is guaranteed by Article 21. It is obvious that there will be no 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis use of the rights conferred by Article 21 if the State does not exact compliance of the same from its officials and functionaries and private persons. Votaries of violence may strike for difference reasons but each time it results in negation of Article 21.2. It is the duty and responsibility of the State to secure and safeguard life and liberty of an individual from mob violence. It is not open to the State to say that the violations are being committed by private persons for which it cannot be held accountable. Riots more often than not take place due to weakness, laxity and indifference of the administration in enforcing law and order. If the authorities act in time and act effectively and efficiently, riots can surely be prevented. Message must go to the mischief mongers that the administration means business and their nefarious designs would be thwarted with an iron hand. 3.The sweep of Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Article 21 is not to be restricted to the violation of right to life and liberty committed by the State alone. That right is also to be protected and safeguarded by the 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis State from being violated or interested with by private individuals. 4. The judicial trend is to award substantial compensation for illegal extinction or deprivation of life and liberty. The loss of life in jail at the hands of inmates or jail authorities and loss of life outside the jail at the hands of functionaries of the State or rioters bring the same tragic results for the families of the victims. No distinction can be made for the purpose of grant of compensation in the aforesaid situations. The principles for grant of compensation or financial aid to the families of the victims whose lives are taken away without due process of law should be the same.”5.This Court also referred to the judgment reported in “R.Gandhi and Others v. The Union of India and another” [1998-2-L.W.399], where, people belonging to Sikh community in and around Coimbatore were affected in a riot on the eve of assassination of Srimathi Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India and the properties possessed by them were also damaged. A Single Bench of this Court, taking note of the facts and 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis circumstances, observed as follows: “The maintenance of law and order is the primary duty on the State and under our Constitution it is a State subject and tops the State list. No Government worth the name can abdicate this function and put the life and liberty, the hearth and home of the citizens in jeopardy. Article 38 of the Constitution enjoins on the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Under Article 19(a) and (g) of the Constitution any citizen of this Country is entitled to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It is obvious that the police have come to the scene very later and their efforts to quell the riots were half-hearted. The action of the Police was lethargic and inefficient. Even 11 according to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, the situation has been brought under control only on 4-11-1984. There has been a virtual breakdown of law and 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order on 31-10- 1984 and subsequent days resulting in huge losses to the members of the Sikh community and to few others in the vicinity. It seems that no policeman was present at the scene and this has emboldened the hooligans to indulge freely in these acts of depredation. In the above said decision, this Court held that the members of the Sikh community in Coimbatore, who have been the target of attack for no fault of theirs, form a microscopic minority and are in a socially disadvantageous position and taking note of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, awarded the compensation. 6.In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner's son had not sustained eye injury due to the attack made by the Police personnel. But still, it is the duty of the State to maintain the Law and Order and it is their obligation to protect the life and property of the citizens and when a life of a person is affected, it is mandatory on the part of the State to provide the victim an adequate and reasonable compensation.7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to order a reasonable 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis compensation to the petitioner's son for the loss of his left eye vision during the agitation. The petitioner's son was a minor and wasaged about 14 years at the time of accident. He also appeared before this Court and this Court also verified and found that he lost his left eye vision. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the petitioner, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.19-03-2025dnTo1.The Government of TamilNaduRep. by The Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Fort ST George, Chennai 600 00810/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Secretary to GovernmentHome Department, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chenani 600 0083. The Director General of PoliceMylapore, chennai 600 0044. The commissioner of PoliceCommissioner office, Veppery, Chennai 600 0075. The Deputy commissioner of PoliceDeputy commissioner office, Mylapore Police station, Chennai 600 004G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,dn11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.10173 of 202319.03.2025W.P.No.10173 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Today the matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis notice of this Court that in paragraph No.8, the result portion of order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.10173 of 2023, has been erroneously stated as “Criminal Original Petition” instead of “Writ Petition”.3. Accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the result portion of the order dated 19.03.2025 shall stand corrected to read as“Writ Petition”.4. In all other aspects, the order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.10173 of 2023 shall remain unaltered.5. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.10173 of 2023 and issue a fresh order copy.21.07.2025Lpp G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Lpp13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10173 of 202321.07.202514/14
huge number many police personnel chasing the crowd and started to fire gun towards the crowd, who were standing near Kalankarai Railway Station, Chennai. Thereafter, due to fear, the petitioner and his father went inside the house and locked themselves in. However, the police had broken the doors and had trespassed the house and pulled out the petitioner and his son from the house and the petitioner's son was brutally attacked by the police persons and as such he sustained injury in his left eye. Later, he filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5091 of 2017, seeking to direct the concerned officials to appoint a team of expert Ophthalmologist and provide proper treatment and to pay Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation to his son for having lost his left eye. This Court, while disposing of the said petition, observed that it is the duty of the State Government to provide treatment and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for claiming compensation and hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.3.On a perusal of the counter filed by the 5th respondent and also on the submissions made by Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner revealed that the petitioner's son had participated in the protest to 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis lift the ban of Jallikattu. During the protest, among the agitators, there was an incident that had taken place by pelting stones, due to which the petitioner's son was sustained injury on his left eye and lost his eye vision. In fact, the petitioner was admitted in the Eye hospital due to the injury cause by unknown agitators who were pelting stones. 4.On a perusal of the records, it is also revealed that the petitioner's son sustained injury by hurling stones by the unknown agitators on 23.01.2017 at about 3.00 P.M. at Loyd's Road. The petitioner is residing at Triplicane. But the petitioner's son sustained injury on his left eye at Loyds Road. It is just opposite to the Marina Beach where the protest was held. Therefore, another version of the petitioner cannot be accepted since there was no lathi charge by the police personnel on the petitioner's son. However, now the only issue to decide is whether the petitioner's son is entitled for the compensation when he participated in the Jallikkattu protest and sustained injury due to the stones pelted by the agitators or not. To decide this issue, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order of this Court dated 02.08.2016 in WP No.40800 of 2002 in the case of “S.Krishnaswamy Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, The Secretary to the Government, Home 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Department and 3 Others”. This Court dealt with the case where an injured was travelling in the bus while there was agitation and the agitators had pelted big stones on the roof of the bus and thereafter, directly hit the persons. Due to which, the petitioner therein, sustained lost of entire eye vision on his left eye. He also sustained fracture at his left cheek. He filed a petition seeking compensation. This Court referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of “Smt.Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi Admn. Through the Lt.Governor” reported in ILR 1996 Delhi 754, where, the husband of the petitioner therein was killed by a mob, which surrounded a train at Tughlakabad Station, forced out about 25-26 Sikh passengers and lynched them and in the writ petition filed for compensation, the widow was paid with compensation. It is relevant to extract the following portion of the said judgment: “1. It is the State's obligation to create conditions where rights of individuals or group of persons under Article 21 are not and cannot be violated. It is for the State and its functionaries to evolve methods and strategies to ensure protection of life and liberty of a person or persons which is guaranteed by Article 21. It is obvious that there will be no 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis use of the rights conferred by Article 21 if the State does not exact compliance of the same from its officials and functionaries and private persons. Votaries of violence may strike for difference reasons but each time it results in negation of Article 21.2. It is the duty and responsibility of the State to secure and safeguard life and liberty of an individual from mob violence. It is not open to the State to say that the violations are being committed by private persons for which it cannot be held accountable. Riots more often than not take place due to weakness, laxity and indifference of the administration in enforcing law and order. If the authorities act in time and act effectively and efficiently, riots can surely be prevented. Message must go to the mischief mongers that the administration means business and their nefarious designs would be thwarted with an iron hand. 3.The sweep of Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Article 21 is not to be restricted to the violation of right to life and liberty committed by the State alone. That right is also to be protected and safeguarded by the 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis State from being violated or interested with by private individuals. 4. The judicial trend is to award substantial compensation for illegal extinction or deprivation of life and liberty. The loss of life in jail at the hands of inmates or jail authorities and loss of life outside the jail at the hands of functionaries of the State or rioters bring the same tragic results for the families of the victims. No distinction can be made for the purpose of grant of compensation in the aforesaid situations. The principles for grant of compensation or financial aid to the families of the victims whose lives are taken away without due process of law should be the same.”5.This Court also referred to the judgment reported in “R.Gandhi and Others v. The Union of India and another” [1998-2-L.W.399], where, people belonging to Sikh community in and around Coimbatore were affected in a riot on the eve of assassination of Srimathi Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India and the properties possessed by them were also damaged. A Single Bench of this Court, taking note of the facts and 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis circumstances, observed as follows: “The maintenance of law and order is the primary duty on the State and under our Constitution it is a State subject and tops the State list. No Government worth the name can abdicate this function and put the life and liberty, the hearth and home of the citizens in jeopardy. Article 38 of the Constitution enjoins on the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Under Article 19(a) and (g) of the Constitution any citizen of this Country is entitled to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It is obvious that the police have come to the scene very later and their efforts to quell the riots were half-hearted. The action of the Police was lethargic and inefficient. Even 11 according to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, the situation has been brought under control only on 4-11-1984. There has been a virtual breakdown of law and 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order on 31-10- 1984 and subsequent days resulting in huge losses to the members of the Sikh community and to few others in the vicinity. It seems that no policeman was present at the scene and this has emboldened the hooligans to indulge freely in these acts of depredation. In the above said decision, this Court held that the members of the Sikh community in Coimbatore, who have been the target of attack for no fault of theirs, form a microscopic minority and are in a socially disadvantageous position and taking note of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, awarded the compensation. 6.In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner's son had not sustained eye injury due to the attack made by the Police personnel. But still, it is the duty of the State to maintain the Law and Order and it is their obligation to protect the life and property of the citizens and when a life of a person is affected, it is mandatory on the part of the State to provide the victim an adequate and reasonable compensation.7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to order a reasonable 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis compensation to the petitioner's son for the loss of his left eye vision during the agitation. The petitioner's son was a minor and wasaged about 14 years at the time of accident. He also appeared before this Court and this Court also verified and found that he lost his left eye vision. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the petitioner, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.19-03-2025dnTo1.The Government of TamilNaduRep. by The Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Fort ST George, Chennai 600 00810/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Secretary to GovernmentHome Department, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chenani 600 0083. The Director General of PoliceMylapore, chennai 600 0044. The commissioner of PoliceCommissioner office, Veppery, Chennai 600 0075. The Deputy commissioner of PoliceDeputy commissioner office, Mylapore Police station, Chennai 600 004G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN.J.,dn11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.10173 of 202319.03.2025W.P.No.10173 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Today the matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis notice of this Court that in paragraph No.8, the result portion of order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.10173 of 2023, has been erroneously stated as “Criminal Original Petition” instead of “Writ Petition”.3. Accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the result portion of the order dated 19.03.2025 shall stand corrected to read as“Writ Petition”.4. In all other aspects, the order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.10173 of 2023 shall remain unaltered.5. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.10173 of 2023 and issue a fresh order copy.21.07.2025Lpp G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Lpp13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10173 of 202321.07.202514/14