Uncategorized

HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.14624 of 2026 AND W.M.P.No.15868 of 2026 Paramasivam

by Sekar Reporter · Published April 24, 2026 · Updated April 24, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.04.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.P.No.14624 of 2026

AND

W.M.P.No.15868 of 2026

Paramasivam

S/o Ramasamy

228, Dr. Ambedkar Street

T. Meenakshipuram Panpozhi Post

Shenkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District

Petitioner(s)

1.National Human Rights Commission

Manav Adhikar Bhawan

Block-C, GPO Complex

INA, New Delhi 110 023

2.The Commissioner of Police

No.132, Commissioner Office Building

EVK Sampath Road, Vepery

Chennai 600 007

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Nungambakkam Range

Chennai 600 034

4.The Superintendent

Central Prison-II, Puzhal

Chennai 66

5.Jailor

Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai 66

6.The Inspector of Police

Puzhal Police Station

Chennai 66

Crime No 1064 of 2016

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from 1st respondent NHRC in Diary No 210545/CR/2016, Case/ File No.691/22/13/2017 Registration date 03.03.2017 and Action Drop date 04.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 1st Respondent NHRC, to initiate an inquiry into petitioner’s son Ramkumar, custodial death in accordance with Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulations.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji

For Respondents : Mr.V.T.Balaji

Senior Panel Counsel for R1

Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan

Additional Public Prosecutor for RR2 to 6

ORDER

(Made by G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.)

The writ petition is filed assailing the order of the first respondent/National Human Rights Commission dated 04.05.2020, closing the complaint and to consequently direct the first respondent to initiate enquiry into the custodial death of petitioner’s son Ramkumar.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that his son Ramkumar was arrested in connection with a murder case and was remanded in Puzhal prison. Alleging that the petitioner’s son committed suicide by biting a live electric wire, he was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital, Chennai, where he was declared brought dead on 18.09.2016. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the Jailor/5th respondent, an FIR in Crime No.1064/2016 came to be registered under Section 176(1A) Cr.P.C.

3.It is further stated that since the remand period of 90 days was nearing completion and there was every possibility of petitioner’s son to come out on bail, his son was murdered by the jail authorities. As it is a custodial death, he had registered a complaint with the first respondent Commission on 03.03.2017. A report was called for from the second respondent/Commissioner of Police, pursuant to which, a report was submitted to the first respondent Commission on

26.03.2018. Based on the report, the first respondent Commission had closed the complaint as ‘action dropped’, which is challenged in the writ petition.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent Commission shall conduct an independent enquiry by examining the witnesses and only after satisfying about the correctness of the facts, can arrive at a conclusion and therefore, the impugned order passed merely relying on the report is erroneous and needs to be interfered with.

5.Mr.V.T.Balaji, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first respondent Commission submitted that the complaint was duly taken cognizance by the Commission and a report was called for and conducted enquiry. After considering the report filed, it was concluded that the petitioner’s son had committed suicide and therefore, finding that no intervention is required, the Commission had closed the complaint.

6.Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 submitted that the petitioner’s son was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in a murder case and in the prison, he had committed suicide by biting a live electric wire and based on the complaint given by the jail authorities, an FIR came to be registered. He further submitted that since the petitioner’s son died in prison, enquiry was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate and based on the report, further action has been dropped by the State. Further, suo motu cognizance taken by the State Human Rights Commission was also quashed by the Division Bench of this Court and a detailed order came to be passed.

7.Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

8.The petitioner’s son P.Ramkumar was accused of murdering a girl Swathi in Crime No.629/2016 on the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai. The accused was arrested and remanded to custody and was confined in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. He was interned in the high security block, in view of security. While so, on 18.09.2016, the accused came out of the block on the pretext of taking water and by break opening the storage box, removed a live wire and bit it, resulting in a severe electric shock. The petitioner’s son died of electrocution.

9.Since the accused died in the prison, based on the insistence of the petitioner, postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors, who have unanimously opined that the death was due to electrocution. In view of the death of the accused in prison, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur, had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. The state Government considering the postmortem report and also the enquiry report of the said Judicial Magistrate, accepted the findings and had dropped further action on the death of remand prisoner P.Ramkumar.

10.Based on the complaint of the petitioner, the first respondent Commission had taken cognizance and after conducting an

independent enquiry, calling for the investigation division report, had concluded that the petitioner’s son had committed suicide and finding that no further intervention is required vide the impugned order, closed the complaint.

11.The first respondent Commission had also observed that based on the evidences available, the petitioner’s son was arrested in respect of the murder of one Swathi and was remanded to custody, where he had committed suicide.

12.The State Human Rights Commission had also taken suo motu cognizance of the incident and had issued summons to the prison authorities. The summons issued were challenged before this Court in

W.P.No.25470 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 05.02.2024, finding that the State Commission is not having jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings, when the issue has already been decided by the National Commission, allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings of the State Human Rights Commission.

13.The Division Bench further had observed that the petitioner’s son had committed suicide and the Government, after considering the investigations conducted and reports filed, has dropped further proceedings and the National Commission has also closed the complaint. The petitioner herein who was the second respondent in the earlier proceedings, had not filed any appeal challenging the finding rendered in that writ petition.

14.Now, when the first respondent Commission had closed the complaint as early as on 04.05.2020, the petitioner had come with the present writ petition after a long delay, challenging the orders of the National Human Rights Commission. The Commission had taken cognizance and considered the entire materials. Separate investigations were ordered to be conducted by the respondent police authorities and the investigating division of the first respondent Commission. The report filed by the independent investigation division revealed that the petitioner’s son was arrested in respect of murder of one Swathi, which was established from the basis of the material evidence like CCTV footage and the statement of witnesses. As per the investigation report, the petitioner’s son had committed suicide in the Puzhal jail and nothing from the investigation or material suggested that the petitioner’s son was falsely implicated in the murder.

15.The first respondent Commission, after considering all the materials available, based on the independent investigation division report and the report submitted by the respondent police authorities, concluded that the petitioner’s son had committed suicide and no further intervention was required. Further, as referred above, the Division Bench of this Court had considered all the issues by taking note of the unanimous postmortem certificate, the findings of the enquiry report by the Judicial Magistrate and the order of the State Government dropping further proceedings, which remain unassailed.

16.In such circumstances, the first respondent Commission has rightly passed the impugned order dropping further proceedings.

17.We see no error or infirmity in the order passed warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

17.04.2026

Index : Yes/No

Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya