K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY & ANR.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

                 [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1149


        K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY & ANR.                         A
                               v.
             STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
           (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2010)
                  SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
                                                                B
        [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

      Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Writ of
mandamus by petitioners seeking independent investigation
by an independent agency like CBI or Special Investigation C
Team (SIT) into the incident of alleged beating of students of
law college by miscreants for initiation of criminal proceedings
against the guilty police personnel and others - Petitioners'
organization had filed complaint with National Human Rights
Commission against erring police officials since State Human D
Rights Commission (SHRC) refused to entertain the same -
Petitioners' alleging their harassment by the police and
registration of false cases against them - Held: The Police
and the State should have addressed the matter with great
concern and promptitude but it was not done - At this distant E
point of time, it is not necessary to hand over the investigation
to CBI or to SIT - Criminal cases have been registered· and
charge-sheets are filed and departmental action was also
initiated against the police personnel and punishment has
been imposed -Directions issued to the Metropolitan F
 Magistrate to dispose of the cases relating to the Law College
incident expeditiously - Highlighting the value of human
 rights, the State asked to fill up the vacant post of Chairperson,
 SHRC.

     Disposing of the writ petition, the Court                   G

. HELD: 1.1. By a perusal of the Status Report and
other materials, video clippings and report of the

                             1149                                H
    1150    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [20141 7 S.C.R.

A Commission of Inquiry, the matter was not proceeded
  with seriousness with which it ought to have been
  proceeded with. Main accused was arrested only after the
  matter was brought to the notice of this Court and only
  after the order was passed by this Court and was
8 subsequently released on bail. Likewise in two criminal
  cases charge-sheets are yet to be taken on file and some
  of the accused are yet to be apprehended and trial is yet
  to commence. [Para 14] [1158-D-G]

       1.2. As regards the entrustment of the matter for
C further investigation to CBI/SIT such order cannot be
  passed as a matter of routine merely because the party
  has levelled allegations against the local police. The
  extra-ordinary power in handing over investigation to CBI
  must be exercised cautiously and in exceptional
D circumstances. [Para 15] [1158-G-H; 1159-A]

       West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of
    Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., 2010 (2) SCR 979:
    (2010) 3 sec 571 - referred to.
E      1.3. Legal education has a direct impact on the
  prestige of the legal profession. It is a matter .of concern
  that such an unfortunate incident should have happened
  within the precincts of Law College, Chennai which has
  produced many eminent lawyers and legal luminaries.
F The matter should have been addressed by the police
  and the State with great concern and promptitude.
  Though the matter was not proceeded in the way in
  which it should have been proceeded with at this distant
  point of time, it is not necessary to hand over the
G investigation to CBI or to SIT. The reason being criminal
  cases have been registered and charge-sheets are also
  filed and departmental action was also initiated against
  the police personnel and punishment t.hough may be
  nominal was imposed on those po.lice personnel. Since
H                                     '
   K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                 1151
                TAMIL NADU
charge-sheets in all three cases have already been filed         A
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, one of which is
already taken on file. [Para 16] [1159-G-H; 1160-A-C]

     1.4. Having regard to the benevolent objects of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the effective
mechanism for redressal of grievances of the citizens            8
against human rights violations, the office of Chairperson
Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission cannot be
allowed to remain vacant for a long time, due to non-
availability of suitable candidates. State of Tamilnadu has.
always shown zero tolerance towards human rights                 C
violations and has always sent clear message of its
commitment towards protection of human rights. There
is no reason as to why the post of Chairperson, SHRC
which is to be headed by a person who has been the
Chief Justice of a High Court should remain vacant for           D
more than three years. Pending the State Government's
request for amendment to s. 21 (2)(a) of the Act which
process would take long time, it would be in order if the
State of 1aminadu takes steps to fill up the vacancy of
the post of Chairperson, SHRC, Tamilnadu in terms of s.          E
21 (2)(a) by constituting a Search Committee at an early
date. [Para 21] [1162-E-G]

     1.5. With regard to petitioners' grievance of
registration of false cases against them, since they have
                                                                 F
already filed petitions u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.,to quash the
charges against them in Criminal cases and obtained
interim stay and quash petitions are be pending, the
petitioners are at liberty to raise all contentions before the
High Court in those petitions filed by them. The
Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to immediately take the      G
cases on file relating to the Law College incident and
dispose of the cases expeditiously. [Para 22, 23] [1163-
C-D; 1163-E-F]
    1152     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A                         Case Law Reference:
        2010 (2) SCR 979             Referred to         Para 15.
        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDIC"flON : Writ Petition (Civil)
    No.400 of 2010
B
        Prashant Bhushan, Sumeet Sharma, Shyam Singh
    Chau~an for the Appellants.

      K. Subramanian, Subramanium Prasad AAG., S. Anand,
  R. Rakesh Sharma, B. Balaji, E.C. Agrawala, R.
C Balasubramanian, S. Gowthaman for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delievered by.

       R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by
D the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to initiate an
  independent investigation preferably by Central Bureau of
  Investigation (CBI) or Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the
  incident of alleged beating of students of Dr. Ambedkar
  Government Law College, Ch~nnai on 12.11.2008 by some
E miscreants so that criminal proceedings could be initiated
  against the gujlty police personnel as well as the other persons
  responsible for the said incident.

       2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are
  as follows:- A group of students of Dr. Ambedkar Law College,
F Chennai belonging to Thevar Community is said to have pasted
  posters and pamphlets inside the college premises in
  connection witb the birthday celebrations of Pasumpon
  Muthuramalingam Thevar in which the name of the law college
  was printed as "Government Law College" instead of "Dr.
G Ambedkar Government Law College". Agitated Dalit Students
  questioned the Non-Dalit Students which led to wordy
  altercation between the two groups culminating in an untoward
  incident which occurred in the campus of Dr. Ambedkar
  Government Law College, Chennai on 12.11.2008 at about
H 2.20 P.M. Both the group of students attacked each other and
     K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                      1153
           TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
  it is alleged that Non-Dalit Students (Thevar Students) were A
  brutally beaten by the other group. Regarding the incident,
  criminal cases were registered against both the groups. Few
  police per~onnel were suspended on the same day and a
  Commission of Enquiry headed by a retired High Court Judge
  was also appointed which filed its report and the same was B
  .iccepted by the State Government and some follow up action
! was taken.


        3. The petitioners claim to be the President and Secretary
  of 'World Human Rights Commission & Rescue Centre' and                 C
  main aim of their organisation is stated to be to instil a sense
  of public awareness about the human rights and take up cases
: of gross human rights violations. Grievance of the petitioners
  is that though the occurrence was in front of the Law College
  in broad day light and a number of police personnel were
  present, they did not intervene to prevent the clashes and the         D
  police remained silent spectators. According to the petitioners,
  the delinquent police officials deliberately did not intervene, only
  in order to appease their political bosses and the police
  personnel were negligent in preventing the incident. Since there
  was violation of human rights and dereliction of duty on the part      E
. of police personnel in preventing the incident, the petitioners
I tried to lodge a complaint with the State Human Rights
  Commission ('SHRC'), but SHRC refused to entertain the same
  and the petitioner No. 2 was left with no option, but to file a
  complaint before the National Human Rights Commission                  F
   ('NHRC') and a case bearing No.1492/22/13/08-09/UC was
   registered with NHRC. Case of petitioners is that, since the
   petitioners have filed complaints before NHRC about the law
   college incident, the petitioners are facing considerable
   harassment at the hands of the Tamilnadu Police and frivolous         G
   cases are registered against the petitioners and their
   Organisation ~ince the petitioners have refused to withdraw the
   complaint filed with the NHRC regarding the law college
   incident. All the accounts and properties of the Organisation
   have been seized by CB CID arbitrarily without following proper       H
   1154      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A procedure. The petitioners therefore allege that the investigation
  in the Law College incident has not been proceeded with all
  seriousness and the petitioners seek independent investigation
  into the incident of brutal beating of students of Dr. Ambedkar
  Government Law College on 12.11.2008 by an independent
B agency either CBI or SIT.

         4. Upon notice, the State of Taminadu and SHRC have
   filed their Status Report/response.

        5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
C the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners filed
  complaint against the erring police officials with NHRC and
  since petitioners have refused to withdraw the complaint filed
  with NHRC, the petitioners are constantly being harassed by
  the State Police - Organized Crime Unit (OCU) and Crime
D Branch -Crime Investigation Department (CB CID) and false
  cases have been registered against the petitioners. Learned
  counsel further submitted that OCU and CB CID police used
  all kinds of third degree methods and the first petitioner was
  brutally beaten not only by the police but also by rowdy elements
E and the petitioner ·and his family members underwent a great
  deal of mental agony, pain and harassment. Drawing our
  attention to the Status Report filed by th~ State, learned counsel
  submitted that in the departmental proceedings, the erring
  police officials have been let off either with 'censure' or nominal
F punishment and the matter has not been proceeded with all
  seriousness and urged that the investigation of the Law College
  incident on 12.11.2008 be handed over to CBI or SIT.

       6. Mr. Subramanium Prasad, Learned Additional Advocate
  General appearing for the State of Tamilnadu had taken us
G through the Status Report filed by the State and submitted that
  criminal cases were registered against both the groups of
  students and accepting the report of One Man Commission, the
  State Government initiated departmental proceedings against
  the police personnel and punishments were also imposed on
H them. It was submitted that criminal cases are registered
   K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                 1155
         TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

against the petitioners and they are charge sheeted for the A
offence of cheating and other offences and petitioners with
malafide intehtion are linking the law college incident as the
cause for registration of criminal cases against the petitioners
by the police and such an allegation is baseless.
                                                                B
     7. We have also heard Mr. K. Subramanian, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the intervener/impleaded
respondent - K. Armstrong and Mr. R. Balasubramanian,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for SHRC.

     8. Grievance of the petitioners is two-fold:- (i) alleged C
inaction or nominal a\tion of the .State and the police and SHRC
on the Law College incident on 12.11.2008 and need for an
investigation by an independent agency like CBI and (ii) alleged
hara~sment of the petitioners by the police and registration of
false cases against the petitioners.                             D

     9. As per the Status Report filed by the State; on the
complaint of Mr. Ayyadurai (Thevar Community) one of the
injured students, a case was registered as Crime No. 1371/
2008 of 82 Esplanade Police Station under Sections 147, 148,
341, 324, 307 & 506 (ii) IPC against one Mr. Chithiraiselvan E
and 40 other students. It is stated that 23 accused students
were arrested and sent to judicial custody and some of the
accused surrendered before the court and they were released
on bail and remaining accused obtained anticipatory bail from
the High Court Madras. Similarly, on the complaint of F
Chithiraiselvan (Dalit Student), a criminal case was registered
in Crime No. 1372/2008 against two students in 82 Esplanade
Police Station under Sections 341, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC and
the same was subsequently altered into Sections 341, 324, 307
and 506 (ii) IPC. Those two students who are accused were G
arrested and they were released on bail on the direction of the
High Court on 12.1.2009. For the alleged ransacking and
damaging of furnitures and other properties of the Principal's
 Room on 13.11.2008 another case was registered in 82
 Esplanade Police Station being Crime No.1374/2008 under H
   1156     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A Sections 147, 148 IPC and Section 3(1) ofTamilnadu Property
  (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and 14 accused
  were arrested who were subsequently released qn bail on
  23.12.2008 as per the order of the High Court.

       10. As per Status Report filed in this Court on 8.9.2014,
B in Crime No.1371/2008 charge-sheet was filed before Vllth
  Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on 10.3.2011
  and the same was returned for rectification of certain errors and
  after rectification it was resubmitted on 19.5.2011 and the same
  is yet to be taken on file. In Crime No.1372/2008, charge-sheet
C was filed and the same has been taken on file Case No.29/
  2011 and the next date of hearing has been fixed for 9.9.2014.
  In Crime No.1374/2008, some of the accused are yet to be
  apprehended and the charge-sheet has been filed on
  22.3.2011 before VI Ith Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
D Chennai which is also yet to be taken on file.

        11. In the Status Report, it is stated that on 12.11.2008,
   qn the same date of incident three officials namely, (1) Mr. K.K.
  Sridev, Principal of the Law College and (2) Mr. K.
E t;&arayanamoorthy, Assistant Commissioner of Police of the
  Jurisdiction Range and (3) Mr.M. Sekar Babu, Inspector of
  Police of B2 Esplanade Police Station were suspended and
  four Sub Inspectors of Police who were working in that area
  had been transferred to other districts. Government of Tamilnadu
F appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice P.
  Shanmugam, a former Judge of the Madras High Court to
  inquire into the incid'ent and the issues referred to by the
  Government. The Commission submitted its report on 8.6.2009
  to the Government and accepting the recommendations of the
G Commission, departmental action was initiated against three
  police personnel viz. (1) Mr .K. Narayanamoorthy, Assistant
  Commissioner of Police; (2) Mr. M. Sekar Babu, Inspector of
  Police and (3) Mr. E. Perumal, Sub Inspector of Police. After
  completing the inquiry against the police officers concerned,
  report was submitted to the Government and matter was
H
      K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                     1157
            TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
  pending before the Home Department for final decision for quite A
  sometime. By Order dated 29.4.2011, this Court directed the
  respondents to ensure that the final orders are passed before
  the next date and the State was directed to file Status Report
  with regard to the entire situation. In furtherance of direction of
  this Court, the State filed a further Status Report stating that B
  Government accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and
  imposed punishment of 'censure' to Mr. Narayanamoorthy,
  Assistant Commissioner of Police in G.O. (2D) No. 217 Home
  (Police-2) Department dated 18.6.2013 and (2) Mr. Sekar
  Babu, Inspector of Police in G.0.(2D) No.218 Home (Police-            c
  2) Department dated 18.6:2013. Insofar as Mr. E. Perumal, Sub .
  Inspector of Police, the Government proposed to impose
  punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.200/- per month
  for two years under Rule 9 of the Tamilnadu Police Rules and
  the said police officer has been called upon to show cause D
  against the proposed punishment.

         12. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
   the petitioners submitted that even though there was grave
   dereliction of duty on the part of the police personnel, there had
   been inconsequential departmental action and only nominal            E
   punishment of censure was imposed on two police officers and
   in case of another police officer Mr. E. Perumal, Sub Inspector
   of Police, the Government proposed to impose meagre
   punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month
   for two years (Rs. 4,800/- in all) and thus in effect no punitive    F
   action has been taken against the police personnel
   commensurate with their grave dereliction of duty, which only
   shows the reluctance on the part of the State in pursuing the
   matter with all seriousness. Insofar as criminal cases registered
   regarding the incident, the learned counsel submitted that in two    G
   cases charge-sheets are yet to be taken on file and urged that
   in order to have a fair investigation, the matter be entrusted to
 1 CBI/SIT for further investigation. Learned counsel submitted that

   it is in this backdrop of the inaction on the part of State,
I petitioners chose to move SHRC and since SHRC had not                 H
    1158   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A promptly responded, petitioners moved NHRC for which, the
  petitioners have been harassed and false cases have been
  registered against the petitioners.

       13. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel
B appearing for SHRC submitted that the SHRC was then headed
  by a retired Chief Justice of the High Court and the petitioners
  are not justified in making baseless allegation against SHRC
  for not taking immediate action. The learned counsel submitted
  that since the State Government appointed Commission of
  Inquiry headed by a retired High Court Judge, SHRC did not
C vigorously pursue the matter, as it would have amounted to
  holding a parallel inquiry by SHRC.

       14. We have perused few video clippings produced before
  us and report of the Commission of Inquiry. But we are
D refraining from entering into the details thereof, lest, it may
  prejudice any party. By a perusal of the Status Report and other
  materials, we feel that the matter was not proceeded with
  seriousness with which it ought to have been proceeded with.
  For instance, the main accused K. Armstrong in Crime
E No.137112008 was not arrested for long time and was shown
  as an absconder in the final report though he is stated to be a
  practising advocate and also a contesting candidate in the
  election. On 8.2.2011, the matter was brought to the notice of
  this Court and only after the order was passed by this court,
F accused K. Armstroog was arrested on 1.5.2011 who was
  subsequently released on bail on 4.5.2011. Likewise in two
  criminal cases charge-sheets are yet to be taken on file and
  some of the accused are yet to be apprehended and trial is
  yet to commence.

G      15. Insofar as contention of Mr. Bhushan to entrust the
  matter for further investigation to CBI/SIT is concerned, time
  and again, it has been reiterated by this Court that such an
  order to conduct investigation by CBI is not to be passed as a
  matter of routine merely because the party has levelled
H allegations against the local police. The extra-ordinary power
    K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                   1159
          TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

                                                                   A
in handing over investigation to CBI must be exercised
cautiously and in exceptional circumstances. In State ofWest
Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Constitution
Bench of this Court held as under:-
                                                                   B
     "70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary
     to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by
     Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any
     order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
     lir:nitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. C
     The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles
     requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the
     question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct
     investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible
     guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such D
      power should be exercised but time and again it has been
      reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a
     matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled
     some allegations against the local police. This extra-
     ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and E
      in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
      provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or
     where the incident may have national and international
      ramifications or where such an order may be necessary
      for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental F
      rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large
      number of cases and with limited resources, may find it
      difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in
      the process lose its credibility and purpose with
      unsatisfactory investigations."
                                                                     G
       16. Legal education has a direct impact on the prestige
of the legal profession. It is a matter of concern that such an
unfortunate incident should have happened within the precincts
of Law College, Chennai which has produced many eminent
lawyers and legal luminaries. We feel that the matter should H
    1160     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A have been addressed by the police and the State with great
  concern and promptitude. Though the matter was not
  proceeded in the way in which it should have been proceeded
  with, we feel that at this distant point of time, it is not necessary
  to hand over the investigation to CBI or to SIT. The reason
B being criminal cases have been registered and charge-sheets
  are also filed and departmental action was also initiated against
  the police personnel and punishment though may be nominal
  was imposed on those police personnel. Since charge-sheets
  in all three cases have already been filed before the Vllth
c Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, one of
  which is already taken on file, in our view, it would suffice if we
  direct the Vllth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town,
  Chennai to proceed with the matter expeditiously.

        17. Learned counsel for petitioners Mr. Prashant Bhushan
D laid scathing attack on SHRC and submitted that SHRC was
  impervious to the incident as well as harassment to the
  petitioners and SHRC did not promptly take steps regarding
  Law College incident. Learned counsel also submitted that the
  office of a Chairperson of Tamilnadu State Human Rights
E Commission has been remaining vacant for more than three
  years.

       18. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioners on the non-
  taking of action by SHRC, the learned counsel for SHRC
F submitted that the office of Chairperson of SHRC is lying vacant
  since August 2011 and SHRC was finding it difficult to take
  follow up action. Having regard to the said submissions, we
  have asked the State of Tamilnadu to file its response as to
  the non-filling up of the office of Chairperson·of SHRC and the
G State has filed its Status Report on 8.9.2014 with regard to the
  appointment of Chairperson to SHRC.

       19. in the Status Report, it is stated that office of
  Chairperson, Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission has
  been lying vacant since 27.8.2011 due to non-availability of
H suitable candidates. It is stated that in response to the request
     K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                 1161
           TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

  of the State Government, High Court of Madras has sent the A
  list of retired Chief Justices who were the Former Judges of
  the Madras High Court along with their date of birth and their
, present addresses. According to the State, in the list sent by
  the Registrar General, High Court of Madras most of the
  candidates are~ither already appointed to different Appellate B
  Tribunals or equivalent post outside Tamilnadu or have attained
  the age limit of 70 years or not having any familiarity with the
  language and culture of Tamilnadu and it was almost impossible
  to find a suitable candidate for the post of Chairperson, SHRC,
, Tamilnadu. It is stated that in terms of Section' 25(1) of the c
: Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, Order dated 4.12.2013
  was issued to Ms. Jayanthi, IAS (Retd.) Member to act as the
  Chairperson in State Human Rights Commission, Tamilnadu
  until the appointment of a new Chairperson to the Commission.
  It is further stated that in this regard Government of Tamilnadu 0
  has proposed to Government of India that a suitable
  amendment to Section 21 (2)(a) of Protection of Human Rights
  Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') could be made to make eligible
   retired Judges of High Court with a minimum experience of
   seven years as a Judge of the High Court for the post of E
   Chairperson, SHRC, Tamilnadu and such proposal is under
  consideration of the Government of India. Status Report filed
   by the State refers to various letter correspondence by the
   State with Union of India in this regard.

     20. We do not wish to ga into the niceties of the proposal    F
 made by the State of Tamilnadu requesting for suitable
 amendment to Section 21 (2)(a) of the Act. We confine our
 focus only with regard to the vacancy of office of Chairperson,
 SHRC remaining vacant for quite some time.
                                                                   G
    . 21. Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 has been
 enacted to provide for better protection of human rights by
 constituting a National Human Rights Commission and also
 State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts.
 Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines "human rights" as the rights   H
    1162    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A relating to life, liberty, equality, dignity of the individual
  guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International
  Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. The above rights
  are traceable to Part Ill of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing
  Fundamental Rights and particularly Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and
B 22. Chapter V of the Act consisting of Sections 21 to 29 deals
  with the constitution of State Human Rights Commission and
  its functions thereto. State Commission consists of a
  Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court and
  four Members. The Act has put in place various remedial
C measures for prevention of any human rights violations and
  confers power upon the NHRC/SHRC to inquire suo motu or
  on a petition not only of violations of human rights or abetment
  thereof or even negligence exhibited by a public servant in
  preventing such violations. The statute has conferred wide range
o powers upon NHRC/SHRC. The Commission is therefore
  required to be constituted with persons who have held very high
  constitutional offices earlier so that all aspects of good and
  adjudicatory procedures would be familiar to them. Having
  regard to the benevolent objects of the Act and the effective
E mechanism for redressal of grievances of the citizens against
  human rights violations, the office of Chairperson of SHRC
  cannot be allowed to remain vacant for a long time. State of
  Tamilnadu has always shown zero tolerance towards human
  rights violations and has always sent clear message of its
F commitment towards protection of human rights. We see no
  reason as to why the post of Chairperson, SHRC which is to
  be headed by a person who has been the Chief Justice of a
  High Court should remain vacant for more than three years. In
  our view, pending. the State Government's request for
  amendment to Section 21 (2)(a) of the Act which process will
G take long time, it will be in order if the State of Taminadu takes
  steps to fill up the vacancy of the post of Chairperson, SHRC,
  Tamilnadu in terms of Sectio.n 21 (2)(a) by constituting a Search
  Committee at an early date.

H       22. So far as the grievance of the petitioners as regards
    K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY v. STATE OF                       1163
          TAMIL NADU [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
registration of false cases against them is concerned, it is A
stated that on the complaint lodged by Reception Officer of the
Circuit House Coimbatore, a criminal case has been registered
against the first petitioner in Crime No. 191/2009 in B4 Race
Course Police Station, Coimbatore City under Section 420 IPC.
Organized Crime Unit (OCU) CB-CID has registered a case B
Crime No.1/2009 against the petitioners on the complaint of
one Krishnakumar for the alleged act of cheating. In both the
cases, charge-sheets have been filed before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Coimbatore which were taken on file in CC
84/201 O and 83/2010. Both the petitioners have filed quash c
petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of
Madras to quash the charges against them in Criminal
O.P.Nos.14609 & 14610/2011and14611 & 14612 /2011 and
obtained interim stay and quash petitions are stated to be
pending. Since the petitioners have already filed petitions under 0
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are at liberty to raise all
contentions before the High Court in those petitions filed by
them.

     23. This writ petition is disposed of directing the Vllth
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai to                   E
immediately take the cases on file relating to the Law College
incident and expedite the trial and dispose of the cases
expeditiously in accordance with law within a period of one
year. The Vllth Metropolitan Magistrate shall file report regarding
the progress of the cases to the High Court once in two months           F
and we request the High Court to monitor the progress of the
cases. In view of our discussion in para (21 ), the State of
Tamilnadu would do well if it takes appropriate steps to fill up
the vacancy of the Chairperson, SHRC, Tamilnadu
expeditiously.                                                           G
Nidhi Jain                                  Writ Petition disposed of.