SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Del) 18

High Court Of Delhi
ASHWANI GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - Respondent
W.P. : 10 of 1999
Decided On : 01/07/2005

Advocates Appeared:
A.M.SANGHVI, AMICT ANDLEY, Anil Nag, ANUSUYA SALWAN, DUSHYANT DAVE, M.Datta, ZUBEDA BEGUM

The central legal point established in the judgment is the State's duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to life and personal liberty, and the entitlement of citizens to compensation for violation of these rights.

Headnote:

DEMOCRACY - GOVERNANCE - Constitution of India, Article 21, Directive Principles of State Policy - The judgment discusses the principles of democracy, governance, and the responsibility of the State towards its citizens as enshrined in the Constitution of India. It highlights the duty of the State to protect the life and limbs of its citizens and the entitlement of citizens to compensation for violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner suffered grievous injuries in a bomb blast and sought compensation for the State's failure to protect his life and limbs. The State provided ex gratia compensation of Rs. 25,000, which the petitioner found inadequate. The petitioner also sought suitable employment and artificial limbs.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found the State liable for the petitioner's injuries and directed the Union of India to pay compensation of Rs. 2,60,000 along with interest. The Court also directed the State Government to appoint the petitioner to a vacant post reserved for persons with disabilities.

Issues: The issues revolved around the State's responsibility to protect citizens, the adequacy of compensation, and the provision of suitable employment and artificial limbs for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State has a duty to protect the life and limbs of its citizens, and citizens are entitled to compensation for violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also emphasized the need for the State to provide suitable employment and support for persons with disabilities as mandated by the law.

Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to pay compensation of Rs. 2,60,000 along with interest and the State Government to appoint the petitioner to a vacant post reserved for persons with disabilities. The petitioner was also awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 jointly against the respondents.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

( 1 ) A State is the comity of individuals. The object is the existence of individuals governed by certain norms agreed to by the society. A duly constituted Government derives its authority and power from the governed. Democracy is the principle of governance where the persons to be governed elect the Government by the rule of majority.

( 2 ) THE classical theory of social contract highlights that the social contract is on account of the rules of conduct required by a just society. All persons are basically the same in terms of the innate human nature and the society is created and the norms are laid about the interaction between individuals amongst themselves. Since the people rationally foresee the consequences, they authorize a power to create a social environment in which the people adhere to their respective promises to govern the society. The most important aspect is the necessity of Government in the interest of all citizens where people are essentially free and live together with some laws to produce a more happy life than living in anarchy. The social contract, thus, establishes legal equality and encourages minimal restriction of individuals freedom by the State. A cardinal principle underline the theory is the consent of the governed given to the Government on a basic premise - the promise of the Government to provide them security, safety and well-being in return for minimal restriction , of their rights and freedom. Edmund Burke said:

"government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. "the very basic want is security and safety of the individual person.

( 3 ) IN the year 1946, the Constituent Assembly was given the task of deciding the mode and manner of such governance. After Independence in 1947, on 26th November, 1999, the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the people of India adopted, enacted and gave to the country the Constitution of india (hereinafter to be referred to as the Constitution ) whereby the India was constituted as a Sovereign Democratic Republic (subsequently substituted in 1976 as Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic ). The Constitution came into force on 26th January, 1950. The Preamble to the Constitution is as under:

"we, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute. India into a [sovereign SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC republic] and to secure to all its citizens: justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the [ unity and integrity of the Nation]; in OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS constitution. "

1. Subs, by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, sec. 2, for "sovereign DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" (w. e. f. 3. 1. 1977 ). 2. Subs, by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, sec. 2, for "unity of the Nation" (w. e. f. 3-1-1977 ).

( 4 ) PART III of the Constitution deals with the Fundamental Rights, while part IV deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. Articles 14 and 21 form part of Part III of the Constitution and provide for equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty respectively. In terms of Article 21, no person is to be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Judicial interpretation in an innovation has extended the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and, thus, it has been held to be a duty of the State to act and create conditions conducive for a life of dignity as opposed to a mere animal existence. None of the protections granted by Part III of the Constitution can really be enjoyed without the provision of safe, secure and protective environment in which a cit






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top