Coimbatore Bar Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

7. Mr.Jai Shankar, Constable, B-3 Police Station, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directingthe Government of Tamil Nadu to compensate the second petitionerherein by payment of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as monetarycompensation for the insult and assault, deprivation of humanrights committed by respondents 5 to 7 herein along with the otherpolice constables who are all employees of respondents 1 to 4 andconsequently impose necessary punishment and take action againstthe erring officials and pass such further orders. For petitioner :: Mr.G.Masilamani, AG assisted by Mr.Raja Kalifulla, GP and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, GA For respondents :: Mr.A.S.Vijayaraghavan for R5 Mr.N.A.Ravindran for R6 O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) The first petitioner is the Coimbatore Bar Association. Thesecond petitioner is a practising Advocate and a member of thefirst petitioner Association. The petitioners have moved this writpetition seeking for a mandamus directing the State of Tamil Naduto pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the second petitioner forthe insult and assault and for the violation of human rightscommitted by respondents 5 to 7 along with other police officialsand to take appropriate action against the erring officials.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:- On 14.12.2006 at about 9.20 p.m. the second petitioner hadentered the town bus stand to board a bus to reach his home. Heand Miss Sathyabama, the fifth respondent (Police Constable)dashed against each other. This resulted in a wordy altercation.According to the second petitioner, he was abused and beaten up bythe fifth respondent and about four constables who had gatheredthere, pushed him down and kicked several times and dragged him tothe nearby All Women Police Station (AWPS) and to B.3 PoliceStation few feet away and beaten up again, even after he hadrevealed his identity as an Advocate. The police also refused totake up his complaint. Later the second petitioner was taken tothe Government Hospital only at 1.45 A.M. the following day and ashe was not given proper treatment and there was also an attempt tofalsely issue a Drunkenness Certificate (DC) as though he wasdrunk. The second petitioner went to Kovai Medical Centre where https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he had earlier undertaken treatment and had undergone surgery forhis brain tumor. According to the second petitioner, as a resultof this surgery, he has lost his vision in his right eye as wellas hearing by his left ear. He had also suffered facial deformitydue to paralysis. When he went to Kovai Medical Centre, after thisincident a series of investigations was done, a CT scan was alsotaken, from which it was found that the second petitioner hadreceived multiple bruises and there was a tear in his left earbecause of the assault. It is also alleged that in order to suittheir convenience, the police also registered a complaint againstthe second petitioner, as allegedly given by Sathyabama, as if hehad outraged her modesty. The second petitioner has alleged thatbecause of the assault, he has been put to severe hardship,especially the artificial instrument implanted in the brain duringthe earlier surgery was also affected. He suffers severe pain inthe spinal region due to the attack and is unable to sitcontinuously for more than 15 minutes. Even after discharge fromthe hospital, he was required to take treatment continuously andcould not attend to his work for nearly three months. More thanRs.1 lakh has been spent for his medical treatment so far becauseof this incident. In these circumstances, the second petitionerhas claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. On behalf of the State Government, a counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City andseparate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 5, 6and 7. According to the version of the respondents, the secondpetitioner was never beaten up by the police either at the busstand or in the police station. They had not refused to receiveany complaint and the giving of the complaint was delayed by theadvocates themselves and at the hospital, drunkenness certificatehad been written out by mistake by the doctors and was not at allissued. A very small incident had been blown out of proportionimmediately after the entry of the Advocates Association and theyindulged in provocative conduct and the respondents were put togreat disadvantage in not having an Association for themselves.The injuries sustained by the second petitioner were allegedly dueto the intervention of the public themselves after seeing hismisbehaviour with a uniformed lady police officer. According tothe respondents, after the second petitioner dashed against thewoman constable, he stared against her and when questioned, hetalked in an offensive tone and pulled her uniform after layinghis hands on her left chest. The public who had gathered therewere infuriated by his conduct and pushed the advocate aside. Theclaim for compensation was denied by the respondents. 4. By order, dated 07.6.2007, this Court appointedK.P.Sivasubramaniam, J. (retired) as Commissioner to enquire intothe alleged incident of assault on the second petitioner on14.5.2006. The Commissioner conducted hearings at Coimbatore. Onthe side of the writ petitioners, four witnesses were examined,while on the side of the respondents, 16 witnesses were examined.Dr.K.Kesavamurthy attached to Kovai Medical Centre and Dr.SaravanaKumar attached to Government Coimbatore Medical College Hospitalwere examined as Commission Witnesses. Finally, the Commissionersubmitted his report, dated 10.10.2007. The Commissioner hasrecorded a categorical finding that the second petitioner wasmercilessly beaten by the 5th respondent and by other constables, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who were four in number, who converged on him and beaten him up.The second petitioner is not a normal, but a sickly person and thefifth respondent ought to have shown some compassion to him whenhe dashed against her, even though her initial anger may bejustified. In regard to the incident at the bus stand, the learnedCommissioner observed in his report as follows:''21. In addition to the failure on the partof the Respondents to produce the dutyroaster of the striking force and the non-examination of Head Constable Palanisamy,certain glaring contradictions as betweenthe counter affidavit of the 5th respondentbefore the High Court and her proofaffidavit before the enquiry, result indiscrediting the Respondent's version of theincident. While being cross examined(R.W.14) she had admitted of several suchcontradictions. To mention a few: (1) While in the affidavit she has statedthat after wordy altercation P.W.1 had puthis right hand on her left breast, in thestatement before this enquiry she has statedthat her shirt on her left side chest waspulled (2) In the affidavit she has notmentioned about both of them having beenseparated by the members of the public (3)In the affidavit she has not mentioned aboutP.W.1 having abused and pushed down 7threspondent and also beating him up. (4) Inthe affidavit she has not mentioned abouttaking the 7th respondent with her to assisther in giving a complaint at the PoliceStation. (5) before this enquiry she admitsthat the facts stated in para no.6 of thecounter affidavit such as leaving for thehome at 10. p.m. Etc. were not correct. (6)Non mention of herself being directed to goto B-4 Police Station to lodge the complaintin the affidavit before the High Court. (7)Non-mention of injuries sustained by P.W.1.22. Regarding all these contradictionsand omissions, in the cross examination shewould state that there are certain mistakesin her counter affidavit filed before theHigh Court and that she observed thosemistakes only later. She admits that she canread and write English and she signed thecounter affidavit only after having readover the same and understood the contents.But in the re-examination she would try tostate that she is not very much conversantin English. Again in further crossexamination, she would state that thecounter affidavit filed by her before theHigh Court does not contain wrong https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ particulars. Such prevaricating statement offacts cannot be appreciated. In fact aspointed out earlier all parties were agreedthat the affidavits filed before the HighCourt shall be treated as pleadings beforethis enquiry. Even otherwise, parties cannotsay that in this enquiry their affidavitsbefore the High Court should be ignored. 23. Such is the nature of the evidencegiven by R.W.14 (5th respondent) who is themost crucial and direct witness on the sideof respondents regarding the incident at thebus stop. Added to the untrustworthyevidence of R.W.1, 2 and 3, it is obviousthat the version on the side of therespondents that P.W.1 attempted to outrageher modesty by laying his hands on her leftbreast, indulging in violent and abusivebehaviour etc, cannot be believed. Theattempt to explain the injuries sustained byP.W.1 as though he might have sustainedinjuries due to the reaction by the membersof public and that he had been pushed down,cannot be sustained. Non production of dutyroaster of the striking force and nonexamination of Head Constable Palanisamyprobablises P.W1's version that thepersonnel belonging to the striking force,four in number, were available and hadconverged on him and had beaten him up". 5. The Commissioner also recorded a finding that after theincident at the Bus stop, the second petitioner was dragged to theAll Women Police Station, which was about 100 feet away and therehe was again beaten up by respondents nos. 5, 6 & 7. TheCommissioner noted that though the injuries received by the secondpetitioner are characterised as simple injuries, it is clear thathe has sustained multiple bruises and abrasions near his left ear,right of the neck, over the right forearm, bruises on the left midback and over the nape of the neck on the left side and around theorbital region. In short there were multiple injuries positivelysuggesting beatings by several persons or by a single personrepeatedly and not in the manner as attributed by the police,namely, that he was pushed down by the angry public and that ishow he should have sustained injuries. The Commissioner alsofound that the records at the police station were manipulated witha view to show that the fifth respondent's complaint was givenearlier to second petitioner's complaint and also to make itappear that they did not refuse to receive the complaint. TheCommissioner concluded that the version of the police that thesecond petitioner's complaint was recorded and registered only atB-4 Police Station is totally false. The Commissioner also foundthat a very unethical and nasty attempt had been made by thepolice to issue a certificate against the second petitioner as ifhe was drunk which was averted at the last minute only due to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vigilance on the part of the advocates. The Commissioner gavesummary of conclusions in para 106 of the report as follows:-''(1) Though it is true that theincident was triggered off by P.W.1dashing against R.5 due to his lowvision, there is no justification forthe behaviour of the Police personnelin having beaten him mercilessly,especially R5, R6 and R7.(2) The police ought not to haveindulged in producing false witnessesto defend themselves. (3) The Police ought not to haveindulged in unethical practice ofrefusing to register the complaint assoon as it was lodged by P.W1.,manipulate the records to make itappear as though the complaint by P.W.1was given very late and only after R5'scomplaint, attempt to obtain a falsedrunkenness certificate against P.W.1,delay in despatch of complaints to theCourt and most important, impute falseallegations as though P.W.1 was animmoral person and tried to violate themodesty of R.5.(4) As far as the quantum ofcompensation is concerned, it is forthe Hon'ble Court to fix theappropriate amount. P.W.1 hasundoubtedly suffered great humiliationdue to the incident as well as falseaccusation against him. He has alsosuffered physical assault requiringsurgery and adding to his frail healthconditions. 6. We have heard the learned Advocate General and the learnedcounsel appearing for respondents 5, 6 and 7 with regard to theobjections raised by the Commissioner in his report.7. We are inclined to accept the findings of the Commissionerabout the incident at the bus stand and the alleged assault at thepolice station. It is clearly seen from the records that thesecond petitioner is not a normal or healthy person and that hesuffers from certain disabilities. Instead of leaving things atthat, the fifth respondent assumed an aggressive role and then theseventh respondent and few other Constables entered the scene andthrashed him repeatedly at the bus stand and thereafter at thepolice station.8. We are also satisfied that the story set up by the fifthrespondent that the second petitioner had outraged her modesty bylaying his hands on her chest is completely false and imaginary.In fact, as recorded by the Commissioner, it was her impulsive anduncontrolled behaviour which has landed her in problems and whenother police personnel joined the fray, there was no place for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ human feelings and it became one way traffic. Though it wasargued before us that there is no adverse material against thesixth respondent, the learned Commissioner has clearly observedthat there is no reason why the second petitioner should haveparticularly chosen to implicate the sixth respondent. There wereother police personnel in All Women Police Station and B-3 PoliceStation, such as R.W.9, R.W.10 and R.W.11 against whom the secondpetitioner has not made any accusation of assault. Both of themare not known to each other and no enmity is suggested so as tounnecessarily and falsely implicate the sixth respondent. TheCommissioner has further highlighted the manner in which the sixthrespondent tried to extricate herself by producing unconvincingwitnesses, which only suggests that she has something to hide orto mislead the enquiry. While summing up the learned Commissionerhas concluded inter alia that the second petitioner has“undoubtedly suffered great humiliation due to the incident aswell as false accusation against him. He has also sufferedphysical assault requiring surgery and adding to his frail healthcondition.” Once the fact of assault is established and nature andnumber of injuries do substantially support the version of assaulton the second petitioner, it is really not necessary to go intothe role attributed to different police officers. We, therefore,have no hesitation to accept the conclusion of the learnedCommissioner that the second petitioner has been physicallyassaulted by respondents 5, 6 and 7 and that he sustained injuriesas stated above.9. In the instant case, it is an undeniable fact that as aresult of the assault, the second petitioner has sustainedmultiple injuries – bruises, abrasions and contusions and hisevidence implicating respondents 5, 6 and 7 is found to beacceptable. Though the incident was triggered off by the secondpetitioner dashing against the fifth respondent due to his lowvision, there is no justification for the behaviour of the policepersonnel in having beaten him mercilessly, especially respondents5, 6 and 7. The human rights of the second petitioner wereviolated with impunity and he is entitled to be suitably andadequately compensated. The power of the Court to award monetarycompensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is nowestablished by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rudal Sah-vs- State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086); Sebestian M.Hongray -vs-Union of India, (AIR 1984 SC 1026); Bhim Singh -vs- State of Jammu& Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494); Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre-vs- Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters (AIR 1990SC 513) and State of Maharashtra -vs- Ravikant S.Patil (1991) 2SCC 373). In Smt.Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera -vs- State ofOrissa and others (AIR 1993 SC 1960), the Supreme Court afterexamination of the earlier cases, clearly laid down that the awardof compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 of theConstitution by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the HighCourt is a remedy available in public law, based on strictliability for contravention of fundamental rights to which theprinciple of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though itmay be available as a defence in private law in an action based ontort. The same view was reiterated in Consumer Education andResearch Centre and others -vs- Union of India and others (AIR1995 SC 922). In a recent judgment in Chairman, Railway Board &Others -vs- Mrs.Chandrima Das and Others ((2002) 2 SCC 465), the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Supreme Court observed where public functionaries are involved andthe matter relates to violation of Fundamental Rights or theenforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be availableunder the public law notwithstanding that a suit could be filedfor damages under private law. In our opinion, the secondpetitioner has made a strong prima facie case for award ofcompensation and having regard to the inhuman way in which thesecond petitioner was mercilessly beaten, we feel that the ends ofjustice would be met, if we award Rs.50,000/- as compensation tothe second petitioner. The second petitioner has incurred anexpenditure of more than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhonly) for his treatment and has also suffered mental agony. Buton behalf of the respondents 5 to 7, the learned GovernmentPleader pleaded for some indulgence. Therefore, we fix thecompensation at a sum of Rs.50,000/- taking into account thesituation of the parties. It is needless to state that the Statewould be entitled to recover this amount of compensation fromrespondents 5 to 7, who were found to be involved in the assaulton the second petitioner.10. At this stage, we may also refer to the observations madeby the learned Commissioner about the behavioural pattern ofpolice personnel. The Commissioner has observed that it isunfortunate that in our country even after 60 years ofindependence the Government has not taken steps to ensure that thepolice personnel undergo proper training to ensure cordialbehaviour with the citizens. They are put in a cage with hard corecriminals and thereby develop negative ethos, attitudes andhardened mental make up towards everyone they meet good or bad.Their uniform adds to the arrogance of power induced into theirmind in course of time. The Commissioner has referred to the factthat in U.K. there is a periodical revision and updating of thePolice Acts and the instructions thereon and much attention isdevoted to make the police at home and friendly with the publicand several Committees are constituted periodically to ensureproper feedback on the relationship with the public and steps tobe taken to remove the thorns between the police and public and tomake the police to develop a psychology to differentiate betweenhard core criminals and ordinary citizens. 11. The Commissioner has made the following recommendationsin para 96 of his report.:-96. The Government should think ofperiodical courses, lectures programmesby eminent speakers like Suki Sivam,Thenkachi Swaminathan, Solomon Pappiahand other to deliver non religiouslectures on human affairs. A committeeconsisting of eminent retired Policeofficers like Mr.V.R.Lakshminarayanan,Mr.K.R.Shenoy, Mr.C.L.Ramakrishnan andmany such others of high standards canbe constituted by the Government to gointo such issues and to advise theGovernment accordingly. Even at theDistrict level there are many seniorand experienced retired police officerswhose services can be utilised for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ infusing discipline and humanisticfeelings among the police personnel. Infact I found that both Mr. N.K.Velu andMr.M.Subramaniam, retired policeofficers who defended R6 and R7 andalso Mr.K.C.Nandakumar, AssistantCommissioner now in service whodefended the 5th respondent are wellequipped and sober enough to constitutea District level team of officers toprovide proper counselling. The Policepersonnel of today deserve allsympathies as they are working undervery great pressure, mental andphysical strain and unless some suchconstructive approach is undertaken bythe Department, it would soon lead tocollapse of the system and it is notgood for the society to alienate goodrelationship inter-se between thepublic and police. 12. The Government may consider the implementation of thesuggestions made by the Commissioner and organise periodicalcourses and lecture programmes as recommended by the Commissioner.13. Before we part with this judgment, it is necessary todeal with the role played by the Coimbatore Bar Association in theentire matter. It appears that as a result of the incident the Barfor a number of days indulged in road blocks inconveniencing thepublic, boycott of courts, paralysing the normal life and traffic.The Commissioner has observed that the issue was not withreference to the second petitioner's performance of hisprofessional duties and it was only a clash between twoindividuals resulting in the Bar Association holding the public toransom. The Commissioner has also noted the extreme level to whichthe Bar Association has gone in this case in passing a resolutionthat no one should appear in defence of the police personnel. Thequestion posed to the Bar Association as to when the advocates canappear for hard core criminals and enemies of the society atlarge, why cannot a lady who had only reacted on somebody dashingagainst her be not defended by advocates and whether it was notunprofessional to refuse to render legal assistance, wentunanswered by the representatives of the Bar. The Commissioner has further observed thus:''100. It is high time that the youngermembers of the Bar do someintrospection about involving theAssociation on individual matters whichhad reached the stage even protestingagainst police action even where anadvocate violates traffic regulations.During last week I cam across a newsitem in "Makkal T.V" in which membersof public were interviewed (at Chennai)regarding road block and hold up of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ traffic by advocates. At least two orthree members of the public made veryscathing and unpleasant remarks aboutBar members and one of them askedwhether they cannot also have anassociation for themselves and causeinconvenience to the public. Let themembers of the Bar be alive to thepublic opinion which is slowly buildingup against them and whether there isany moral or legal justification toinvolve their association when theissue has nothing to do with thedischarge of his professional duties. 101. Time has come for the youngermembers of the Bar to decide as towhether their actions reflect thedignity of the profession. Who standsto loose by boycott of courts on issueswhich do not pertain to the dischargeof advocates professional duties? Ihave always held the opinion thatboycott of courts for whatever reasonis detrimental only to the advocatesand the litigants who is his paymaster. If courts are boycotted, theGovernment and the police are happybecause there will be no orders of stayor injunction or bail orders. I havealso held the opinion that the onlyoccasion when boycott would bejustified is when a presiding officerbehaves like a dictator and in areprehensible or corrupt manner andwould not correct himself even afterdue complaints to higher authorities.Even then, boycott can be only of thatcourt and not other courts. There arevarious other ways of fighting forjustice when a member of the Bar isinvolved in a clash with any otherperson. 102. It is certainly open to themembers of the Bar to help and aid anadvocate in distress in any manner. Inthis very case the helping handextended by the members of the Bar toMr.Mohammed Rafi cannot be objected to.The officer bearers can certainly takecare of the situation and do all theneedful. If the expectations are notfulfilled, Bar can certainly take upthe matter with higher authorities orcomplain to the Committee which hasbeen formed by the High Court to gointo clashes between police and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ advocates, even in cases where theclash relates to the performance ofprofessional duty by the advocates. Inthis case it was not done. But no rightthinking citizen will endorse theinvolvement of the association vis-a-vis an advocate as an ordinary citizenand the issue has nothing to do withperformance of his professional duties,and the Association indulging in roadblock and boycott of courts etc. ..... ..... ......104. Whatever I have said above inthe context of involvement ofAssociation is as a person who alwaysfelt proud to have been a member of anoble profession and at the same timefeel sad and disturbed by the criticismof the public against the profession.Let the conscience of each member ofthe bar go into these issues andwhether Association could be involvedin matters unconnected with thedischarge of professional duties of alawyer and I would feel happy if mywords have the desired effect at leaston handful of members of the Bar. It isfor this Hon'ble Court to deal withthis issue in an appropriate manner".The Commissioner’s anguish express our feelings exactly.14. We had issued notices to the Chairman, Bar Council ofTamil Nadu and Puducherry; the Chairman, Federation of Districtand Subordinate Courts Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu andPuducherry at Salem; the President, Madras High Court Advocates'Association; the President Madras Bar Association; 5) thePresident, Women Lawyers' Association, Chennai and 6) thePresident, Law Association, Chennai, but we failed to get anypositive response from the leaders of the Bar.15. There are judgments of the Supreme Court that boycottsare to be avoided at any cost. Rare exception is a situation wherethe independence of the Bar or of the Judiciary or the rule of lawis under jeopardy. But, unmindful of all these guidelines,boycotts go on. There are certain issues between the Government orPolice on the one hand and the lawyers on the other, and there canbe some causes for friction. But strikes are not the remedy. Bygoing on strike, the Bar is paralysing the administration ofjustice and preventing justice to be rendered to the litigants andthe cases which are listed on those particular days have to besimply adjourned. When there is a strike, thousands of litigantswho are expecting some result to come out go home disappointed. Itis, therefore, imperative that the Bar should not resort tostrikes and boycotts except under very special and exceptionalcircumstances as laid down by the Supreme Court. The strikes andboycotts on minor or trivial issues should be avoided and the Barshould consider of availing the alternative remedy of holdingtalks, instead of going on prolonged strike on one account or the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other. Unfortunately, in recent times, Tamil Nadu State judiciaryis affected by the frequent strikes and boycotts by lawyers andtheir Associations. Practically, every other day, one BarAssociation or the other goes on strike and on most occasions, thestrikes are totally unjustified. If this trend is not stopped, thetime will come when practically the Courts in the State will beparalysed by frequent strikes and boycotts. 16. We appeal to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu andPuducherry, as well as the other Bar Associations to do someintrospection to avoid the repeated strikes and boycotts on theCourt. We may quote the observations of Justice J.S.Verma madeduring the course of Justice Shankar Prasad Bhargava MemorialLecture:-“It is necessary to refer to somedisturbing recent trends which affectproper administration of justice in thecountry. In any orderly society, themode of protest against any decisionmust be in accord with the rule oflaw. The recent trend of the Bar toagitate against an unpalatable decisionis by resort to extra-judicial andextra-legal methods, one of which is astrike resulting in closure of Courts.Rule of law requires solution of everyproblem and redressal of everygrievance in the manner provided bylaw. For proper administration ofJustice, it is necessary that thereshould be easy access to the Courtswithout any hindrance. If there be anyhindrance to the hearing andadjudication of causes pending in thecourts by causes other than those whichare natural, it is a matter of graveconcern...We are the torchbearers of thepresent generation. Let us handover tothe next generation a brighter torchproviding better illumination so thatposterity does not condemn us aspersons who could not rise to theoccasion in the performance of ourprimary duty to the nation. Let usresolve to rededicate ourselves to workwith full vigour to ensure continuedgovernance of the nation by 'Rule ofLaw' which catalyses the nation'sprogress by accelerating the marchtowards attainment of complete socialjustice". Redressal for any grievance, must be only in accordance withlaw. This is what any lawyer will advise his client. The sameadvice applies when lawyers are aggrieved too. Then too, redressalmust be sought only in accordance with law, not by paralyzing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ legal machinery. The frustration and fury of the lawyers cannotbe expressed by boycotting the Court. For by abstaining fromCourt, the lawyers are punishing neither the judges nor police northe State but the defenseless innocent citizens who have engagedthem and paid them their fees. We again reiterate that lawyersmust hereinafter abandon this pernicious practice of boycotts,strikes and demonstration, and must discharge their duties in anexemplary manner. We hope the lawyers of this State will in futureset a shining example for others to follow.14. In the result, the petition is allowed and the followingorder is made:-(i) The State Government is directed to pay to thesecond petitioner a compensation of Rs.50,000/- forviolation of his human rights by the police officers.(ii) The State is at liberty to recover this amountfrom the erring officials.(iii) In the present case, the Commissioner hastaken special efforts to record the evidence of thewitnesses and held as many as nine sittings and submitteda very exhaustive report. We fix the fees of theCommissioner at Rs.1 lakh. The State Government isdirected to pay the fees of the Commissioner within fourweeks from today. We record our appreciation for theefforts taken by the Commissioner in finishing theassignment in a short duration and submitting anextensive report on the matter.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar js/pvTo 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.4. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.26230+1 cc To Mr.N.A.Ravindran, Advocate, SR.25560+1 cc To Mr.B.Rajendran, Advocate, SR.25961 W.P.No.716 of 2007and M.P.Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2007ra [co]gkg/20.5