9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can direct the State to grant monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21 in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 2. Whether the State is liable for the acts done by Home Guards in the course of their duty. I. Question: Jurisdiction to Grant Compensation under Article 226 In view of the rival contentions, the prime question to be considered is notwithstanding the right to seek remedy available under the civil law or criminal law to the petitioner as a victim of police torturing, can this Court direct the State to grant monetary compensation to the petitioner for the infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The court examined the evolution of the law granting the right to sue against the State, tracing its origins from the doctrine of "Crown immunity" to the recognition of the right to compensation for infringement of fundamental rights as seen in cases like Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. It was concluded that the courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens and can grant compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21. Therefore, in view of the case law set out on this point under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is very clear in our mind that notwithstanding the right to remedies under Civil suits or Criminal proceedings, this Court can grant compensation in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under public law to the victims who suffered infringement of their right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. II. Question: Liability of the State for Acts of Home GuardsThe next question to be considered is whether the State is liable for the act done by the Home Guards, in the course of their duty while they are employed by the State under the police force? On a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Kerala Home Guards Act, 1960, it was found that the Home Guards have the same powers, privileges, and protection as that of an officer of the police force and are deemed to be public servants. Therefore, the Government is liable for the acts or omissions made by the Home Guards in the course of their employment while employed by the Government. Therefore, we reject the contention raised by the 3rd respondent denying liability of the State for the act done by the Home Guards. AnalysisLet us consider the instant case in the light of the well-settled legal position, which is derived from the Case Law. First of all, we may examine the admitted facts which are disclosed by pleadings of both parties. The incident as such is fairly admitted by all respondents except the cause of injury which resulted in the loss of 5 teeth of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, while he was returning home after 2nd show film, he was intercepted by a police team consisting of respondents 5 to 7, cane charged him brutally and in the said assault, he has lost 5 teeth, whereas according to the respondents, the 7th respondent who was standing 80 meters away from the scene tried to stop the motor vehicle by stretching and waving lathi and that resulted in grievous hurt and losing of 5 teeth. Even in this controversy regarding the manner in which or the act by which the injury was caused, certain facts are obviously admitted and stand indisputable. The admitted and indisputable facts, amount to an infringement of the right to life and personal liberty of the petitioner. Whether it was an act done with mens rea? Whether it was an act caused by negligence? Whether it was an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death? Was there any motive or previous enmity? Which respondent is responsible? Was the act done in furtherance of a common intention? All these are questions which rest on the above disputed facts are to be considered in determining the penal or civil liability of the respondents. We are not considering these disputed issues. These are 'facts in issue' which fall under the domain of criminal court or Civil Court in whose jurisdiction the act was done. We are considering the question of granting compensation by the State for the infringement of fundamental right in view of the admitted and indisputable facts only and leaving all remaining above said controversies to competent courts as the case may be. ConclusionIn the light of the catena of case law quoted and referred above it is very clear in our mind that though there is no express provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation by the State for the infringement of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has judicially evolved that such victims are entitled to get compensation under public law in addition to remedies under private law. We find that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the first respondent/State for the infringement of his right to life and personal liberty at the hands of the respondents 5 to 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that an award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, the relief which is prayed for, is just and proper to meet the ends of justice. We direct the first respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner within one month from the date of the judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
|
