2002 Supreme(Chh) 27
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
FAIZAN UDDIN
KEHAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Respondents
W. P. 6 Of 2001
Decided On : MAY 1, 2002
ALOK BAKSHI, SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL
The central legal point established is the State's duty to protect citizens' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and provide compensation for failure to do so.
Headnote:
Compensation - Anti-Sikh Riots - Article 21 of the Constitution - 1996 AIHC 5644, AIR 2001 SC 1309
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their family members in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. They had received some compensation but sought further relief and compassionate appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to additional compensation based on the judgments in Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration and S. S. Ahluwalia v. Union of India. It directed the respondents to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation with interest and allowed the petitioners to make representations for other reliefs.
Issues: Compensation for Anti-Sikh Riots, Compassionate Appointment, State's Duty to Protect Citizens' Rights
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to protect the life, liberty, and dignity of individuals. It emphasized the duty of the State to create a climate where members of different communities live together and to provide compensation if it fails to protect citizens' rights.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay compensation. The petitioners were also allowed to make representations for other reliefs, and the State was directed to submit a report on any criminal proceedings related to the victims' deaths.
( 1 ) HEARD. BY this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay compensation as awarded by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1429/96 in case of Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration reported in (1996) 3 AD (Delhi) 333 : (1996 AIHC 5644) for the death of each victim in anti-Sikh Riots occurred in the year 1984 with interest thereon from the date of incident. The petitioners further pray to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the family members of the petitioners.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident took place in the town of Dongargarh (Chhattisgarh) where Shri Harmit Singh aged about 25 years, son of the petitioner No. 1 and the second one was Sardar Santosh Singh, aged about 58 years, who was husband of petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that on 15-11-1984 a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 was given on the spot as immediate relief to both the families and in the year 1998 Rs. 30000. 00 was paid. Thereafter a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 was given. So far the petitioners have received the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 in all on account of death of each victim. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1998 published a notice saying that if any of the relative or family member of the aggrieved family wants to make report, then he/she may make a report to the Police and pursuant thereto, son of petitioner No. 1 made a report to the police vide Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 in case of petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners had made several representations before various authorities for enhancement of amount of compensation. It is further submitted that petitioners have filed representation for compassionate appointment vide Annexure P-3 and the Collector Rajnandgaon has refused vide letter dated 6-2-2001 (Annexure P-4 ).
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 (Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration) reported in 1996 AIHC 5644, the Delhi High Court directed payment of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that this should apply to other similar cases. He has drawn attention to para 10 of the said Judgment which reads as under :"article 21 is the Nation's commitment to bring every individual or group of persons within its protective fold. This nation belongs to members of all the communities. They are equal members of the Indian Society, Equally before law and equal protection of laws is ensured to them by Article 14 of the Constitution to them. None is to be favoured or discredited. The conduct of any person or group of persons has to be controlled by the State for the lofty purpose enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of the State to create a climate where the cleavage between members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed are eradicated. The State must act in time so that the precious lives of the people are not destroyed or threatened. Otherwise, Article 21 will remain a paper guarantee. Time is long overdue for adopting measures that have more than a hortatory effect in enforcing Article 21 of the Constitution. The State cannot adopt a "do nothing attidue". Like disease prevention, the State must take every precaution, measure and initiative to prevent terrorem populi of the magnitude represented by 1984 riots and in the event of an out-break of riot it must act swiftly to curb the same and not allow precious time to slip by, as any inaction or passivity on its part can result in loss of precious life and liberty of individuals amounting to violation and negation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State has to enforce minimum standards of civilized behaviour of its citizens so that the life, liberty, dignity and worth of a