2015 custodial death case: T.N. SHRC recommends ₹10 lakh compensation to deceased’s family

2015 custodial death case: T.N. SHRC recommends ₹10 lakh compensation to deceased’s family

The State Human Rights Commission on Tuesday (May 27, 2025) recommended that the Tamil Nadu government pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to the family of a man, who died in police custody near Mettur in Salem district in July 2015. The Commission had taken suo motu cognisance of a report published in The Hindu over the custodial death of Gokulakannan and the protests that followed.

SHRC member V. Kannadasan also recommended that the Tamil Nadu government recover ₹2 lakh each from then Sub-Inspectors S. Hariharan and S. Keerthivasan; ₹1.5 lakh each from then Special Sub-Inspectors R. Venugopal and R. Chandrakumar; and ₹1 lakh each from then head constables S. Elango and R. Mathanasekar and then Grade I police constable K. Krishnamoorthi. They were serving in police stations in Karumalaikoodal, Kolathur, Mettur — all in Salem district. He also recommended that disciplinary proceedings, if any had been initiated against the respondents, be completed within three months.

According to the report, the police took Gokulakannan, a contract labourer, into custody for questioning in connection with a murder in Karumalaikoodal village and the next morning, he complained of ill-health and was rushed to the Mettur Government Hospital. He was later taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital in Salem, where he was declared ‘brought dead’. Protests erupted against the incident, and the Salem Superintendent of Police intimated the Commission regarding the custodial death. The SHRC then took suo motu cognisance of the report published in The Hindu, and called for a report from the Public (Law & Order) Department.

Considering the materials on record and reports of the Commission’s Investigation Division, the Salem Collector and the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur, the SHRC said it was proved that the respondents had detained the deceased Gokulakannan in the police station and “they had tortured him and caused injuries to him and he died for the injuries sustained by him and hence the respondents are responsible for the death” of the deceased.

The SHRC further said: “There is gross negligence of duty on the part of the respondents in having failed to send the injured person to the hospital in time for treatment and manhandled the deceased Gokulakannan and the same amounts to violation of human rights of the deceased and they had failed to prove their innocence that they had performed their duty in accordance with law.” It held the respondents had violated the human rights of the deceased.