7 Oct 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P. No.36278 of 2006
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0030Salem, Tamil NaduJudgment 7 October 2009
Ayilpatty Man vs Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another
The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Grade-I Constable challenged the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect for stripping three schoolboys naked and beating them with a stick at Ayilpatty police station in November 1994. The court examined the PSO 145 enquiry, medical evidence, and hospital records showing the boys' admission as inpatients, and found the evidence sufficient to hold him guilty despite later retractions. The court held that custodial torture strikes at Article 21 and that the penalty was commensurate with the misconduct. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 7 October 2009 in W.P. No.36278 of 2006, the Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Police Constable Grade I, Ayilpatty Police Station, Salem District.
- Register number
- TN 27 CW 0003
- Case reference
- W.P. No.36278 of 2006
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: K. Chandru, J.), 7 October 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Constable Grade I, Ayilpatty Police Station, Salem District
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This Court is fully satisfied that the evidence recorded by the authorities are sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty.” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Madras High Court judgment dated 7 October 2009 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
Custodial torturePrimary
Material fact supported
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.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“This Court is fully satisfied that the evidence recorded by the authorities are sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty.” (para 12)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(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.