D UNGUSWAMY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMENT HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition once again brings out the conduct of men belonging to the Uniformed Services and instead of being a protector and defender of human rights, they themselves are committing human rights violations. Only recently, a Division Bench of this court vide its decision in W. P. No. 47861 of 2006 dated 13. 12. 2006 in T. Loganatha n vs. State Human Rights Commission and another dealt with the issue of human rights and the enforceability of the orders of the State Human Rights Commission [for short,'SHR C ] elaborately and dismissed the writ petition filed by a policeman. Hence, the decisions referred to therein are not reproduced herein. Suffice to say that the SHRC has jurisdiction to deal with the human rights violations and also to direct compensation in any given case.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. R. Karthikeyan , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani , learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Sundaram , learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and have perused the records.

(3.) HOWEVER, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the SHRC was well aware of its jurisdiction and analysed the evidence properly and had made the recommendations in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference. He further submitted that the conclusion arrived at by SHRC was based upon guidelines made by the Supreme court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1349 [ Jokindar Kumar v. State ofU. P.] and air 1997 SC 160 [ D. K. Basu v. State of U.P.].