2006 (2) TMI 699 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of illegal detention, custodial torture, and harassment.
2. The validity of the actions taken by the police in their efforts to locate Joginder Singh.
3. The credibility of the petitioner's claims.
4. The appropriate legal remedies and whether compensation should be awarded for the alleged violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

Allegations of Illegal Detention, Custodial Torture, and Harassment:
The petitioner alleged that he and his family were subjected to illegal detention, custodial torture, and harassment by the police in their efforts to locate his son, Joginder Singh. The petitioner claimed that he was beaten, his moustache was plucked, and he was forced to drink hot water with salt. His wife and daughters were also allegedly mistreated, and his licensed gun, cartridges, and gold ornaments were seized. The petitioner sought compensation for the social, physical, and financial loss suffered by him and his family.

Validity of Police Actions:
The police contended that their actions were part of legitimate efforts to locate Joginder Singh, who was involved in multiple serious criminal activities, including the murder of a police constable and escaping from police custody. The police argued that the petitioner and his family were questioned to ascertain Joginder's whereabouts.

Credibility of Petitioner's Claims:
The CBI conducted an inquiry and found that while there was some evidence of illegal detention and beating, the allegations of custodial torture were exaggerated and, to an extent, false. The CBI report noted that the petitioner had a history of criminal cases, and his son Joginder Singh was involved in numerous criminal activities. The petitioner's claims of disowning his son were found to be false, as evidence showed regular contact between the petitioner's family and Joginder.

Legal Remedies and Compensation:
The Supreme Court considered whether compensation should be awarded for the alleged violations of Article 21. The Court referred to established jurisprudence, noting that compensation as a public law remedy is appropriate for gross and patent violations of fundamental rights. However, in this case, the Court found that the allegations were not incontrovertible and were exaggerated. There was no medical evidence or visible marks to support the claims of torture.

The Court emphasized that while custodial violence is condemnable, compensation should only be awarded in cases where the violation is patent and incontrovertible, and where there is independent evidence of custodial torture. The Court concluded that this case did not meet the criteria for awarding compensation as a public law remedy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that there was no clear or incontrovertible evidence of custodial torture, and several allegations were exaggerated and false. Consequently, the Court did not consider it a fit case for awarding compensation. The Court noted that appropriate reliefs had already been granted by ordering a CBI inquiry and ensuring the prosecution of the police officers involved. The petition was disposed of with the observation that this order would not preclude any civil court from awarding compensation in a tort action or a criminal court from awarding compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the charges were established.