In a stern judgment addressing police misconduct, the Bombay High Court ordered the State to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to a Mumbai woman for the unlawful arrest of her husband. The Court also expressed deep frustration over how cases of police abuse are often taken lightly, highlighting systemic issues in handling citizen complaints.
The case, Ratna Chandrakant Vannam And Anr v. Tukaram K. Jadhav, stemmed from a 2012 incident where Ratna Chandrakant Vannam’s husband, Chandrakant Vannam, was arrested on allegations of illegal construction while repairing their home. The arrest followed a dispute with a neighbor who had reportedly demanded ₹20,000, and upon refusal, lodged a complaint accusing the Vannams of unauthorized construction.
When the Vannams sought to file a harassment complaint at Wadala TT Police Station, officers declined to register it. Soon after, Assistant Police Inspector (API) Tukaram Jadhav arrested Chandrakant Vannam and five construction workers. Allegations surfaced that Jadhav demanded ₹12,000 for Vannam’s release and ₹1,200 per worker, with payments made for the workers’ release while Vannam remained in custody until he was granted bail.
The Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande delivered a scathing critique of the authorities’ handling of the case, stating:
“We had already expressed our anguish in no uncertain words in our order dated August 14, 2013, specifically by recording that the allegations against the police officers are taken very lightly and casually and the citizens are not believed as a matter of course. Here is a classic example.”
The Court dismissed the justification provided by the police under the Maharashtra Police Act, emphasizing that arrest was not mandatory in this case:
“Even if assuming that there was power of arrest, it did not make it imperative for a police officer to effect the arrest.”
Lax Disciplinary Action Criticized
The Court was equally critical of the disciplinary action against API Jadhav, who faced only a minor penalty of ₹2,000 for failing to file an affidavit in an earlier order. The Bench expressed disappointment that the inquiry failed to address the officer’s misconduct or examine whether his actions were legally justified.
“We are astonished by the approach of the Respondent authorities, as what was expected by this Court… was an inquiry into the act of dereliction of duty/misconduct as per the Service Rules,” the Court observed.
The Court also rebuked the authorities for disregarding its earlier directives:
“We fail to make out as to whether the respondent authorities have failed to understand the implications of the directions issued by this Court or, despite understanding, have ignored it by passing the impugned order and imposing fine upon Mr. Jadhav only for the act of non-filing of the affidavit.”
Compensation Awarded, Accountability Stressed
Highlighting the severity of police abuse, the Court called the case a “classic example of the abuse and misuse of powers by the police officials.” It awarded ₹1 lakh in compensation to Mrs. Vannam for her husband’s unlawful detention and authorized the State to recover the amount from the errant police officers.
The Bench urged higher authorities in the Police Department to ensure compliance with the Court’s previous orders, remarking:
“We leave it to the good conscience of the higher-ups in the Police Department to ensure compliance of our orders dated 14.08.2013, if it is permissible and possible after more than a decade.”
