'Violation Of Privacy, Loss Of Reputation': Madras High Court Asks State To Compensate Woman Falsely Implicated In Case Under Immoral Traffic Act

Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai bench noted that the State could not shirk its liability by claiming that the officers involved were not performing their official duty. Further, the court rejected the State's defence that the charge sheet was quashed on the basis of a detailed enquiry conducted by it and thus it was not liable to pay compensation.

"It is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the writ petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible. The State cannot escape from contending that the officials at the station level have unauthorisedly done the said act and hence, the State is not liable for the same."

The court noted that the woman's arrest and detention had garnered much media attention which had affected her right to privacy. Thus, the State was liable to compensate the woman, it added.

"In view of the above said facts and the judgement referred supra, this Court is of the view that the official respondents have violated the privacy and harmed the reputation of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the State is liable to pay compensation. The first respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the writ petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the State is at liberty to recover the same from the erring police officials if they are advised to do so."

In the present case, the petitioner was arrested based on a complaint by one Sasikumar under various provisions of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956. She was detained at Women Home, Madurai for a period of 13 days and thereafter enlarged on bail.

On a detailed enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, it was found that the case was foisted against her due to tenancy disputes and personal vengeance by private respondents. The defacto complainant Sasikumar also deposed that he was unaware of the complaint and that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper by the police authorities when he had visited the station in connection with a traffic offence. Based on the report of the Deputy Superintendent, the petitioner approached the High Court and the charge sheet against her was subsequently quashed.

The petitioner had filed the present case to claim a compensation of one crore rupees from the State and the concerned authorities for the disrepute suffered by her and her family due on account of the false case and false incarceration.

Objecting to the compensation, the State claimed that the petitioner could not claim compensation as she was exonerated only with the aid and assistance of the State. It was further submitted that the Inspector had abused the process of law and thus there was no vicarious liability since he was not in discharge of duty authorized by law.

The concerned Inspector also objected to the compensation by claiming that he had no personal vengeance. He submitted that he had only performed his duty without any malafide or bias. He also submitted that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved, she should have proceeded with the alternative remedy of approaching the civil court by way of defamation suit.

The court opined that the State could not take advantage of enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent when it had not initiated any action against the concerned officers for filing the false case.

Case Title: X v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109