Custodial torture: HC impleads Home Secy, DGP, SP
Chennai: The Madras High Court yesterday suo motu impleaded the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur district, as respondents in the case of alleged custodial torture of a
Chennai: The Madras High Court yesterday suo motu impleaded the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur district, as respondents in the case of alleged custodial torture of a woman at a police station at Udumalaipet in Coimbatore district.
Justice V Ramasubramanian, who was about to pass orders on two aspects in the case, in his brief order said it was seen that the petitioner had unfortunately not impleaded either the state government or the DGP as a party to the writ petition.
He noted that two miscellaneous petitions were filed today by the petitioner, seeking the court's permission to amend the prayer on transferring the investigation to some other agency and another for a direction to the government seeking compensation.
In a case which falls under the public domain where the larger reliefs are sought, it is imperative that the state also be given an opportunity of being heard, the court said.
“Therefore, I hereby suo motu order impleadment of the above authorities”, he said and directed Special Government Pleader I S Inbadurai to get instructions from the government on the two prayers on the two petitions.
The High Court had on September 15 declared that it would pass orders today on two aspects in the matter—whether the investigation has to be transferred to any other agency and whether the woman prisoner has to get psychological treatment.
Justice V.Ramasubramanian, before whom the nodal officers' medical report was filed in a sealed cover that day, after hearing arguments of the Additional Advocate General and petitioner's counsel, opined that the remand magistrate and the magistrate before whom the complaints were made had not acted upon in a manner known to law.
The Judge had also opined that the magistrate who ordered remand may have acted on the day the accused was produced before him and the magistrate before whom the complaints were made with regard to the custodial torture.
He orally observed that the magistrates who remand the accused and the magistrate before whom the petitions of complaints were made did not do the duty perfectly.
He had then declared that he would pass orders on the above two aspects.