As per case facts, several Forest Officials faced proceedings before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) following allegations of human rights violations made by a complainant. The complainant claimed that ...
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
and
WMP (MD) Nos.22776, 14417, 22775, 20584 and 19658 of 2022
W.P(MD)Nos.19752 of 2022
Arun ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Chennai - 28.
3. Tyson @ Pani Tyson Raja ... Respondents
1/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings in SHRC
Case No.880/2019 dated 20.07.2022 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Murugan
For Respondents: Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff (R1)
Special Government Pleader
: Mr.F.Deepak (R2)
: No appearance for R3
W.P(MD)Nos.25574 of 2022
T.Kalaiarasan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The State Human Rights Commi,
Ssion of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Registrar (Law),
No. 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
Chennai-600 028.
4. Tyson @ Pani Tyson Raja ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the
3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order of compensation passed by
him vide his proceedings in SHRC Case No. 880/2019 dated 20.07.2022 and
consequential impugned order of recovery passed by the 2nd respondent vide his
proceedings in G.O.(D) No.216 Environment, Climate Change and Forest (FR-I)
Department dated 19.09.2022 and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents: Mr.G.Mohan Kumar (R1 & R2)
Additional Government Pleader
: Mr.F.Deepak (R3)
: No appearance for R4
W.P(MD)Nos.26401 of 2022
Shanavaskhan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
2. The State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Registrar (Law),
No. 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Chennai-600 028.
3. Tyson @ Pani Tyson Raja ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to
the order of the 2nd respondent in SHRC case No. 880 of 2019 dated 20.07.2022
and the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a G.O.No. 216/ECCF (FR-1)
Department dated 19.09.2022 of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J. Anandkumar
For Respondents: Mr.G.Mohan Kumar (R1 & R2)
Additional Government Pleader
: Mr.F.Deepak (R3)
: No appearance for R4
W.P(MD)Nos.28801 of 2022
T.Silvester ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary, Home Department,
4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Chennai - 28.
3. Tyson @ Pani Tyson Raja ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to
the order of the 2nd respondent in SHRC case No. 880 of 2019 dated 20.07.2022
and the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a G.O.No. 216/ECCF (FR-1)
Department dated 19.09.2022 of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents: Mr.G.Mohan Kumar (R1)
Additional Government Pleader
: Mr.F.Deepak (R2)
: No appearance for R4
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)
Aggrieved by the common order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the
State Human Rights Commission, these writ petitions have been filed.
5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
2. The petitioners are Forest Officials working in different cadres of
the Forest Department. They were proceeded against before the State Human
Rights Commission on the allegation that they had violated the human rights of
the complainant. The State Human Rights Commission, upon adjudication,
directed payment of compensation. Challenging the said order passed by the State
Human Rights Commission, the present writ petitions have been filed.
3. Since the challenge in all these writ petitions arises out of the
common order passed by the State Human Rights Commission, they are disposed
of by this common order.
4. For the sake of brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as
the “Forest Officials”, “Complainant” and “Human Rights Commission”,
respectively.
5. The complainant claims to be a businessman and a merchant
owning a shop. He also claims to be involved in social work and to be well
known among the tribal people, among whom he undertakes social welfare
6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
activities. The further case of the complainant is that the Inspector of Police,
Naxal Eradication Division, requested him to conduct celebrations during the
Pongal festival in a tribal village, with a view to creating awareness among the
tribals about the movement and activities of Naxalites in the forest area. Based on
the request made by the Inspector of Police, the complainant and other volunteers
planned to celebrate the Pongal festival at Thachamalai, Pechiparai, on
12.01.2019. According to the complainant, he, along with his team members,
reached the Pechiparai zero point in a vehicle arranged by the Inspector of Police.
They carried provisions, their personal clothes and other articles required for
celebrating Pongal with the tribal people of Thachamalai. It is his further case that
they did not carry any prohibited articles in the vehicle. It is alleged that, at the
zero point, the petitioners, who are Forest Officials, intercepted the complainant
and his team members and enquired about the purpose of their visit. They were
informed that no person would be permitted to proceed beyond the said point
after 6.00 p.m. The complainant claims that he informed the Forest Officials that
the Inspector of Police, Naxal Eradication Division, had granted permission to
conduct the Pongal celebrations in the tribal village and that he had also spoken
to the Inspector of Police over the telephone. He further claims that they were
7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
ready to return. It is further alleged that one of the Forest Guards, who was on
duty at the Forest Department check-post, was talking on his mobile phone and
thereafter asked them to come inside, but prevented them from proceeding
further. The complainant alleges that the Forest Officials prevented the movement
of the complainant and his team members.
6. It is the further case of the complainant that the Forest Range
Officer, who already knew the complainant, verbally abused the complainant and
his team members and directed the Forest Guard to inspect the vehicle. According
to the complainant, even after finding that the articles carried by them were not
prohibited, the Forest Officials took the vehicle to the Forest Range Office near
Kulasekaram and treated them as suspects. The complainant further alleges that,
thereafter, the Inspector of Police reached the Forest Range Office and informed
the Forest Officials that the complainant and his team members had entered the
forest area for creating awareness among the tribal people. He also requested the
Forest Officials to release them. However, it is alleged that one Kennedy, a Forest
Official continued to detain the complainant and his team members at the Forest
Range Office without providing them food or other basic necessities, as a result
8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
of which they had to spend the entire night there. It is further alleged that the
Inspector of Police thereafter reached the place and sought the release of the
complainant and the other three members of his team. According to the
complainant, though no case was initially registered, subsequently a forest
offence case was registered against the complainant and the other team members.
Alleging violation of his human rights by the Forest Officials, the complainant
preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission. Upon
adjudication, the State Human Rights Commission imposed compensation against
the petitioners. Challenging the said order, the present writ petitions have been
filed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that admittedly the petitioners are Forest Officials working in the Kulasekaram
Forest Range. Any person seeking to enter the forest area after 6.00 p.m. is
required to obtain prior permission and even during the daytime, permission is
necessary for entering the reserve forest area. It is submitted that the Kulasekaram
Forest Range forms part of a tiger reserve forest and therefore, a duty is cast upon
the petitioners to protect human life as well as the forest area.
9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
8. The learned counsel would further submit that the complainant
had entered the reserve forest area without obtaining prior permission from the
Forest Department and that such entry constitutes a forest offence. The
complainant, having admitted his guilt, paid a penalty of Rs.10,000/- to the Forest
Department. Thereafter, Forest Crime No.1 of 2019 was registered by the
petitioners against the complainant. It is therefore submitted that, once the
complainant had admitted that he entered the reserve forest area without prior
permission and had paid the penalty, the very action of the Forest Officials in
preventing such unauthorised entry cannot subsequently be adjudicated upon by
the State Human Rights Commission. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioners, being Forest Officials, had only discharged their statutory duties
vigilantly by preventing persons from entering the reserve forest area after 6.00
p.m. and such official action cannot be made the subject matter of proceedings
before the Human Rights Commission.
9. The learned counsel would further submit that the Inspector of
10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
Police, Naxal Eradication Division, had entered the forest area and forcibly
released the complainant and the other three members of his team and had taken
away the vehicle involved in the forest offence. It is submitted that, thereafter, the
Forest Department registered a criminal case, viz., Crime No.2 of 2019, for the
alleged forest offence, which is pending before the competent Special Court
dealing with forest offences. The learned counsel would therefore submit that,
when the criminal proceedings arising out of the alleged forest offence are
pending adjudication, there was no justification for the State Human Rights
Commission to arrive at a conclusion against the petitioners and impose
compensation, particularly when the petitioners had acted in discharge of their
official duties. Hence, he would pray for allowing the writ petitions.
10. Though the name of the complainant is printed in the cause list,
there is no appearance on his behalf.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the State Human Rights
Commission would submit that, admittedly, the complainant entered the reserve
forest area after 6.00 p.m. with the permission of the Inspector of Police, Naxal
11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
Eradication Division. Though the Inspector of Naxal Eradication Division has no
power to grant permission to enter the reserve forest area after 6.00 p.m., the
Forest Officials, in coordination with the said Department, ought to have handled
the matter peacefully and in good manner. It is further submitted that, instead of
releasing the complainant immediately after the incident, the Forest Officials
detained him and the other members for the whole night without providing food
and other basic necessities, which amounts to a violation of human rights.
Therefore, the State Human Rights Commission imposed compensation and the
same does not warrant interference by this Court.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the State
Human Rights Commission and perused the materials available on record.
13. The admitted facts disclose that the complainant had entered the
reserve forest area after 6.00 p.m. without obtaining prior permission from the
Forest Department. The petitioners, being Forest Officials entrusted with the duty
of protecting the reserve forest area, were justified in preventing such
12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
unauthorised entry. The complainant had also admitted the forest offence and paid
the penalty imposed by the Forest Department. In such circumstances, the action
of the petitioners in intercepting the complainant and his team members and
preventing them from proceeding further cannot, by itself, be construed as a
violation of human rights. Though there is an allegation that the complainant and
his team members were detained at the Forest Range Office during the night, the
materials placed before this Court do not establish that the petitioners had acted
with any intention to violate the human rights of the complainant. On the
contrary, the circumstances indicate that the petitioners had acted in discharge of
their statutory duties to prevent unauthorised entry into the reserve forest area.
The subsequent registration of the forest offence case also lends support to the
stand taken by the petitioners.
14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the State Human Rights Commission was not justified in
holding that the petitioners had violated the human rights of the complainant and
in directing payment of compensation. The impugned order passed by the State
Human Rights Commission, therefore, warrants interference by this Court.
13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
15. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the State Human
Rights Commission is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.D.I.,J.] & [N.D.K.,J.]
01.09.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
PKN
To
1. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarangam,
No.143, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
Chennai - 28.
14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI , J.
and
N.DILIP KUMAR, J.
PKN
W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401 and 28801 of 2022
01.09.2026
15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In a significant **Madras High Court Ruling** concerning a purported **human rights violation by forest officials**, the consolidated writ petitions W.P(MD)Nos.19752, 25574, 26401, and 28801 of 2022, led by Arun and others, have garnered considerable attention on CaseOn. This judgment, delivered by the esteemed bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. DHANDAPANI and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. DILIP KUMAR on September 1, 2026, revisits a crucial decision by the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu.
The petitioners in these cases were Forest Officials working in various capacities within the Forest Department. They faced proceedings before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on allegations of violating the human rights of a complainant. The SHRC, after adjudicating the matter, directed the payment of compensation by these officials. Aggrieved by this order, the Forest Officials filed the present writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The core of the dispute revolved around an incident where the complainant and his team were intercepted by Forest Officials while attempting to enter a reserve forest area.
The primary legal question before the Madras High Court was whether the State Human Rights Commission was justified in concluding that the Forest Officials had violated human rights and consequently directing compensation, especially when the officials claimed to be acting in the discharge of their statutory duties to prevent unauthorized entry into a reserve forest area, an act for which the complainant had admitted guilt and paid a penalty.
The case was heard under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants the High Courts the power to issue various writs. The relevant legal principles involved the statutory duties and powers of Forest Officials to protect reserve forest areas, particularly those designated as tiger reserves, and the jurisdiction and limitations of the State Human Rights Commission in adjudicating alleged human rights violations and awarding compensation. Entry into reserve forest areas, especially after specified hours or without prior permission, constitutes a forest offence.
The complainant, identifying as a businessman, merchant, and social worker among tribal communities, sought to celebrate the Pongal festival in a tribal village within the forest area on January 12, 2019. He claimed to have received an informal request from the Inspector of Police, Naxal Eradication Division, and even alleged that he had spoken to the Inspector over the phone regarding permission. However, it was undisputed that he entered the reserve forest area after 6:00 p.m. without obtaining formal prior permission from the Forest Department.
The Forest Officials intercepted the complainant and his team at a check-post. They were informed that entry beyond that point was not permitted after 6:00 p.m. Despite the complainant's claims of police permission, the officials prevented their movement. It was further alleged by the complainant that he and his team were verbally abused, their vehicle inspected, and subsequently taken to the Forest Range Office near Kulasekaram, where they were detained overnight without food or basic necessities, being treated as suspects. An Inspector of Police later arrived and sought their release.
Crucially, the complainant admitted to the forest offence of unauthorized entry and paid a penalty of Rs.10,000/- to the Forest Department. Furthermore, a Forest Crime No.1 of 2019 was registered against the complainant, and a criminal case (Crime No.2 of 2019) for the alleged forest offence is pending before a competent Special Court.
The High Court carefully considered these facts. It noted that the petitioners, as Forest Officials, were entrusted with the duty of protecting the reserve forest area, which in this instance, formed part of a tiger reserve. Preventing unauthorized entry, especially after 6:00 p.m., was a legitimate discharge of their statutory duties. The complainant's admission of guilt and payment of penalty further solidified the justification for the officials' initial actions. While the complainant alleged detention without food, the High Court found that the materials on record did not establish that the Forest Officials acted with an intention to violate human rights. Their actions were primarily aimed at preventing an unauthorized entry, which was a forest offence. For legal professionals and students looking to quickly grasp the nuances of such critical judgments, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs, providing succinct analyses that cut through complex legal texts and highlight the core aspects of rulings like this one.
In light of the above analysis, the Madras High Court concluded that the State Human Rights Commission was not justified in holding that the petitioners had violated the human rights of the complainant and in directing the payment of compensation. The court found that the Forest Officials were merely discharging their statutory duties. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the State Human Rights Commission was set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed.
This judgment stemmed from a challenge by Forest Officials to an SHRC order that mandated compensation for alleged human rights violations. The SHRC's ruling was based on the premise that the officials detained a complainant who attempted to enter a reserve forest area after permissible hours. The Madras High Court meticulously reviewed the facts, noting that the complainant had indeed entered the restricted area without proper permission, admitted to the forest offence, and paid a penalty. The High Court determined that the Forest Officials were acting within their statutory duties to protect a sensitive forest reserve and that the evidence did not sufficiently prove an intentional human rights violation on their part. Consequently, the High Court overturned the SHRC's order, absolving the Forest Officials of the human rights violation claim.
This judgment serves as a critical precedent for understanding the delicate balance between the discharge of statutory duties by public officials, particularly those involved in environmental protection, and the protection of individual human rights. For lawyers, it clarifies the scope of actions taken by Forest Department personnel and the evidential requirements needed to establish a human rights violation in such contexts. It also highlights the limitations of the State Human Rights Commission's jurisdiction when official duties are being performed legitimately. For law students, this case provides an excellent example of applying legal principles to factual scenarios involving public law, administrative law, and environmental statutes, alongside human rights jurisprudence. It underscores the importance of proper procedure, clear evidence, and the interpretation of official conduct.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....