The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thoothukudi man, a ward member and bullock-cart driver, was picked up on 17 September 1999 by Thalamuthu Nagar police, chained and tortured overnight in the station, and brought dead to Thoothukudi Government Hospital on 18 September 1999 with 38 injuries. The RDO enquiry under PSO 145 and the States own G.O.Ms. No. 1284/2000 found brutal torture by the named duty personnel and ordered criminal prosecution and departmental action, but no action was shown taken. The court held the detention without authority violated Article 22(1) and the D.K. Basu safeguards, directed the State to pay Rs.8 lakhs within four weeks, and ordered proceedings against the guilty officers with recovery from their personal salaries if necessary. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 19 January 2009 in W.P. No. 6195 of 2000, the Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.) returned findings adverse to 10 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Madras High Court judgment dated 19 January 2009 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“The petitioner lost her only breadwinner by the gruesome act committed by the policemen functioning under the control of the third respondent.” (para 19)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
