Chennai- In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, set aside an externment order and a remand order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The High Court termed these orders a "clear abuse of the process of law" and motivated by "personal vendetta." This case is potentially the first in the country where a judge directly invoked Section 4 of the SC/ST Act against a senior police officer, leading to his incarceration.

The core of the case

The saga began with a trivial altercation at a bakery in Walajabad in Kancheepuram district, on July 25. A dispute erupted between two groups: one included Lokeshwaran Ravi, the then Personal Security Officer (PSO) to the Principal District Judge, his father-in-law, and others; the other group consisted of a woman named Parvathy and her family members. Following the squabble, both sides filed cross-complaints. After recording statements from all parties and finding the matter resolvable, the police closed both Complaint Status Reports (CSRs) on July 28.

Petitions filed in the High Court alleged that the District Judge believed his PSO, Lokeshwaran Ravi, was behind repeated anonymous complaints against him. Consequently, the Judge contacted the Superintendent of Police (SP) to have his PSO changed. WhatsApp messages supporting this conversation were submitted as evidence. The petitions further alleged that when the Judge learned that the complaint against his PSO had been closed, he orally instructed the Walajabad Police Inspector to register a new FIR based on the closed CSRs. It was claimed the Judge threatened the Inspector with action under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act if he failed to comply.

Under this alleged pressure, two new FIRs were registered on August 20, 2025. Crime No.282/2025 was against Parvathy's husband, Murugan, while Crime No.283/2025 was against PSO Lokeshwaran Ravi and his family members, with sections of the SC/ST Act added.

On September 4, the District Judge exercised suo motu powers under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act. He passed an order extering all accused in Crime No.283/2025, including the PSO, from Kancheepuram district. The judge cited a lack of action by the police for 15 days as the reason for his order. However, the High Court found this order fundamentally flawed.

The Arrest of the DSP, First in the Country

The subsequent events were even more startling. On September 8, the Judge summoned the Kancheepuram Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), M. Sankar Ganesh, to his court seeking an explanation on the implementation of the externment order. Allegations state the DSP was made to wait in court from morning until evening.

Suddenly, in the evening, the Judge took cognizance of an offence under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act against the DSP himself for allegedly failing to arrest the accused in the case. He remanded the DSP to judicial custody until September 22, 2025. The DSP was reportedly taken to the Kancheepuram Sub-Jail in the Judge's official car. This is likely the first instance in India where a judge directly used Section 4 to imprison a senior police officer.

What did the High Court Say

Justice N. Sathish Kumar of the Madras High Court strongly disapproved of both orders. On the externment order, the Court held that the mandatory procedure under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act was not followed. The Court observed, "An externment order under the SC/ST Act is warranted only when there is a real atrocity committed on the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes... In the given case, on a careful perusal of the very complaints... it is clear that there were mere altercations between the parties... naturally, one side may not even know what is the caste of the other side."

Regarding the remand of the DSP, the High Court relied on a crucial Supreme Court judgment (State of GNCT of Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar, 2024). It emphatically stated, "To set in motion the penal proceedings or even to take cognizance under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non." 

The Court further noted, "Merely because the Deputy Superintendent of Police or other Police officials have not immediately implemented some directions issued by the learned Judge... it cannot be said that they have committed an offence under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act."

Acknowledcing the grave allegations of "motive, bias and misuse of power" against the District Judge, the High Court ordered an independent probe. The Registrar (Vigilance) of the Madras High Court has been directed to conduct a thorough enquiry into the entire sequence of events, from the filing of the initial complaints on July 25 to the passing of the remand order, including the alleged conversations and WhatsApp messages between the Judge and police officials. The Vigilance Registrar must submit a report by September 23, 2025, for further action.