This is the first case in the country where Section 4 of SC/ST Act was directly used. The High Court said that the judge misused judicial powers by acting with personal malice against his PSO. Gave instructions for judicial investigation
Chennai- Madras High Court has cancelled the externment order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kanchipuram under Section 10 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the order to send the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to jail under Section 4 of the same Act. The High Court has described these orders as “clear abuse of the process of law” and “motivated by personal motive”.
This case is the first of its kind in the country, where Section 4 of the SC/ST Act was directly used by a judge against a senior police officer and he was sent to jail.
What is the root of the controversy?
The case began with a simple clash at Walajabad police station in Kancheepuram district. On July 25, 2025, a dispute broke out between two groups at a bakery in Walajabad. One group comprised Lokeshwaran Ravi, the then Personal Security Officer (PSO) of the Principal District Judge of Kancheepuram, his father-in-law and others, while the other group comprised Parvathy and her family members. Following the clash, both parties filed complaints against each other. The police, after hearing both sides and recording statements from the parties, settled the matter on July 28 itself and both CSRs (Complaint Status Reports) were closed.
The petitions filed in the High Court alleged that the District Judge felt that his PSO Lokeshwaran Ravi was repeatedly sending anonymous complaints against him. Due to this, the judge approached the Superintendent of Police (SP) and demanded a change of his PSO. Even WhatsApp messages of this conversation were produced in the petition. When the judge learnt that the complaint lodged against his PSO had been closed, he called up the inspector of Walajabad police and verbally ordered him to register a fresh FIR based on the closed CSR. The judge allegedly threatened the inspector that if the FIR was not registered, action would be taken against him under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.
Following this pressure, two fresh FIRs were registered on August 20, 2025. Crime No. 282/2025 was registered against Parvathy’s husband Murugan, while Crime No. 283/2025 was registered against PSO Lokeshwaran Ravi and his family members, with sections of the SC/ST Act also added.
On September 4, the Kancheepuram district judge passed a Suo Motu (of his own volition) order using Section 10 of the SC/ST Act. In this order, he ordered all the accused in Crime No. 283/2025, including PSO Lokeshwaran Ravi, to stay out of the limits of Kanchipuram district. The judge said in his order that since the police did not take any action for 15 days, he had to pass this order. However, the High Court quashed this order.
DSP arrested – first case in the country
The action that followed was even more shocking. On September 8, the judge summoned DSP Kanchipuram, M. Shankar Ganesh to the court and asked him for information about the compliance of the externment order. It is alleged that the DSP was made to sit in the court from morning till evening and in the evening suddenly the judge took cognizance against the DSP under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and ordered him to be sent to judicial custody.
The DSP was immediately sent to Sub-Jail, Kanchipuram in the judge’s own official car. This is perhaps the first case in the country where a judge directly used Section 4 against a senior police officer and sent him to jail.
What did the High Court say
Justice N. Satish Kumar of Madras High Court expressed serious objection to both these orders. He said that the procedure required to pass the externment order was not followed. The court said, “An order of externment under the SC/ST Act can be passed only when there has actually been an atrocity on the members of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe and there is a possibility of the accused committing such an offence again… In this case, looking at the complaints of both the parties, it is clear that there was only a clash between the parties while purchasing some eatables in a bakery and naturally, one party would not even know the caste of the other party.” The High Court cited an important decision of the Supreme Court (State of GNCT of Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar, 2024) on the arrest of the DSP. The High Court said, “For initiating punitive proceedings against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, the recommendation of an administrative inquiry is a sine qua non.” The court further said, “Only on the ground that the DSP or other police officers did not immediately comply with certain directions issued by the judge in the name of deportation, it cannot be said that the DSP or other police officers have committed any offence under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act.” The High Court also took note of the serious allegations levelled against the District Judge. The court said that the serious allegations of “bias, bias and abuse of power” levelled against the judge in the petitions should be independently investigated. The High Court directed the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Madras High Court to investigate all the events, conversations and WhatsApp communications between the judge and the police officers from the filing of the complaints dated July 25, 2025 to the final order of the judge. The court ordered the report to be submitted by September 23.
Geetha Sunil Pillai
Courtesy : Hindi News