CW-2026-0007Chengalpattu, Tamil NaduJudgment 1 February 2026

Mrs. Guduvancherry Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and Anr.

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sub-Inspector challenging an order of the State Human Rights Commission finding her guilty of custodial torture and awarding Rs 5 lakh compensation to victim [name withheld]. The Commission found that the officer assaulted the complainant with hands and lathi at Guduvancherry Police Station in December 2018, causing severe injuries across both knees, hands, and legs. The High Court observed that the serious allegations remained uncontroverted by the officer, indicating tacit admission, and deprecated her failure to file a counter or produce records. Finding no merit or grounds for interference under Article 226, the Division Bench left the compensation award and recommendation for disciplinary action intact. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 1 February 2026 in W.P. No. 14267 of 2021, the Madras High Court (Coram: Anita Sumanth, J., Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J., JJ.) returned findings adverse to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
TN 11 CW 0004
Case reference
W.P. No. 14267 of 2021 / 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: Anita Sumanth, J., Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J., JJ.), 1 February 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade us to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the Respondent No.2 herein agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of Rs.3,50,000/- during the course of her …” (at para 4)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 1 February 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade us to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the Respondent No.2 herein agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of Rs.3,50,000/- during the course of her …” (para 4)

Institutional response

1
1 Feb 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.