The Court was hearing two appeals tagged together. One was filed by the lawyer Muruganantham seeking that the compensation of ₹1 lakh awarded to him by the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) be enhanced to ₹50 lakh.
The other appeal was filed by the Sub-Inspector challenging the SHRC order that had held that Muruganantham’s rights have been breached.
The High Court went through the first information report (FIR) and the SHRC’s findings to conclude that the allegations against Muruganantham, who suffered from 80 per cent physical disability, of having assaulted his physically abled relative, seemed far-fetched.
It also reminded the police that the case was one of a civil dispute between two relatives and in the Arnesh Kumar judgment, the Supreme Court had said very clearly that arrests should be an exception in all cases where the maximum punishment was less than seven years’ imprisonment.
The police had submitted that Muruganantham’s arrest was necessary, as it feared that he might misuse his disabled status by not appearing in court.
However, the Court held,
“These reasons, in our considered opinion, are wholly unsustainable. We therefore, agree with the conclusion of the State Human Rights Commission that there has been a Human Rights Violation in the matter of arrest of the petitioner.”
Source: Barandbench
