Chennai, Apr 17: Stated to be the first of its kind verdict in its annals, the Madras High Court has directed a woman judicial magistrate in Dharmapuri to pay Rs one lakh compensation to a woman for violating her fundamental rights.
The court also ordered departmental proceedings against her holding that the acts of the judicial officer were not “bona fide”.
Justice Vinod K Sharma yesterday also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the magistrate for filing a false affidavit to the effect she did not order for the judicial custody of the petitioner.
“The action of Gunavathy, the Judicial Magistrate-I in Dharmapuri was not bona fide. Her negligence had been pointed out as early as in October, 2000. But she had not chosen to correct the same. Instead, she continued to treat S Velankanni, the petitioner in the case, as an accused and released her only on bail bond”, the judge observed.
The Judge further observed that “By her irresponsible act, Gunavathy had deprived Velankanni of her liberty and hence, violated her fundamental rights and ordered Rs. one lakh compensation.
The State should pay the amount immediately to Velankanni and recover the same from Gunavathy in accordance with law, the judge added.
Additionally, since the JM had filed a false affidavit in the High Court, she should be proceeded against departmentally for acting with extreme negligence and further notice should also be issued to her to show cause as to why proceedings under Sec 340 of the CrPC should not be initiated against her, the judge said and directed that the matter be placed before the administrative side of the Madras High Court for initiating action against Gunavathy.
According to petitioner, a native of S Kollapatti village and belonging to Christian Dobhi community, one John Kennedy, a Vanniar Christian of Sellayampatti, was in love with her.
Following assurance of marriage, she entered into physical relations with Kennedy and became pregnant. However, Kennedy refused to marry her and suggested that she undergo an abortion.
The woman lodged a complaint with the All Women Police in Dharmapuri and the case was placed before Gunavathy.
Kennedy was arrested and remanded in judicial custody on October 16, 2000. The very next day, he was taken to the local government hospital for medical check up.
The woman was also taken to the hospital on the same day for check-up. After the check-up, Kennedy was taken back to the sub-jail.
But the petitioner was produced before JM Gunavathy, who remanded her also in judicial custody without any inquiry.The petitioner did not know the reason for her remand.
After three days in jail, where the woman was subjected to harassment, she was granted bail, thanks to the free legal aid given by an advocate.
After coming out, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Tamil Nadu State Women's Commission. Following a direction from the Commissioner, a DNA test was conduct and the paternity of her male child was established to be that of Kennedy.
Narrating the entire sequence of incident, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking for Rs 5 lakh compensation, in 2006.
In her counter, Gunavathy submitted that the act of the petitioner amounted to scandalizing the authority of the court, which came under the definition of criminal contempt of court.
The writ was not maintainable in law as the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and it suffered from delay and laches.
Petitioner had not produced any iota of evidence in support of her claim that Gunavathy had remanded her to the judicial custody. Moreover, her judicial actions were protected under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, she added.
The SI attached to the All Women Police Station in Dharmapuri told the court that as per the orders of Gunavathy, the petitioner was taken to the hospital for medical check-up, brought back and produced before Gunavathy, who suo-motu took a decision and remanded her to judicial custody, on October 21, 2000.
When the SI pointed out the mistake, Gunavathy issued a production warrant on October 23 and ordered the release of the petitioner in bail bond.
The jail authorities had also stated that it was Gunavathy who ordered the remand of the petitioner. Holding that the action of Gunavathy was not bona fide, the judge slapped Rs 1 lakh compensation and recommended departmental proceedings against her.
