Madras High Court expresses shock at Sub-Inspector's ignorance of Arnesh Kumar guidelines on arrest

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu (TN) Police to pay compensation of ₹5 lakh to a physically disabled lawyer who was arrested earlier this year in contravention of Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar judgment and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [L Muruganantham v. The State]..In a judgment passed on Tuesday, a bench of Justices R Subramanian and K Kumaresh Babu also directed the TN Director General of Police (DGP) to conduct training programs for police personnel to sensitize them about the manner in which disabled persons must be treated during arrests. The Court also directed the DGP to depute an officer in every district to ensure that CCTV cameras installed in police stations are functional..The Court expressed its shock at the fact that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharapuram, who had arrested the disabled lawyer, had not read the Supreme Court's judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr, which governs the law surrounding arrest."The very casual manner in which the officer replied to our query, as to whether, he had read the judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another shocks us......When the Hon’ble Supreme Court had come down heavily upon the Police force for indiscriminate arrest, the Chiefs of the State Police Force are required to ensure that the message reaches every Constable of the Police Force. An ignorant Police Force is as good as one not existing.".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.".It also said that the compensation amount ordered by the SHRC was wholly "insufficient", and enhanced the amount to ₹5 lakh, which is to be borne by the State government..The Court felt it necessary to issue directions to the State government to effectively implement the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. While directing that district-wise sensitisation programmes be conducted for police officers, the Court said,"Such programmes shall be so designed that they throw enough light on the provisions of the enactment and the intendment of the legislation. Guidelines should also be issued to the Police Officers as to how they should handle such physically disabled persons. Similar guidelines are also to be issued to the Government Doctors who come across such physically disabled persons who run into conflict with law and brought before them for medical examination...".Advocate Muruganantham appeared as party-in-person in his appeal. The Sub-Inspector was represented by Advocate P Palaninathan. Special Government Pleader A Selvendiran appeared for the State government. Advocate T Balaji appeared for the State Human Rights Commission..[Read Judgment]