The main legal point established in the judgment is the state's duty to protect the life and liberty of individuals under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the inadequacy of the ex gratia compensation previously paid.

( 1 ) BY way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking payment of rs. 1,18,275. 00 with interest on account of compensation for the injuries and loss suffered by him in the 1984 riots. The 31st of October, 1984 saw the unfurling of a saga of terror let lose by barbaric mobs indulging in a spate and orgy of violence directed against a specific community after the killing of late Prime minister Smt. Indira Gandhi. The agony of the people effected would have known no bounds in as much as there are allegations and instances to the effect that the protectors of life, society and property completely failed in discharge of their duty to protect and, if did not actually perpetrate the crime, acted in their promotion and tacit support to the unruly mobs. Noticing the turmoil, tragedy and loss suffered by mankind, Anil Dev Singh j in his judgment reported at 1996 III AD delhi 333 entitled Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi administration, commented thus:- 5. The case demonstrates how innocent lives were snuffed out by barbaric mobs indulging in an orgy of violence after the brutal killing of Smt. Indira Gandhi. It is not difficult to visualise the terror, pain and the suffering which must have struck the affected people not at the hands of beasts but fellow beings belonging to the same mother land to which the dead belonged. Bemoaning the loss of the near ones how they would have preferred beast to human beings for company and must have yearned for a place free of marauding crowds-yearned for a place where fear would not enter-yearned for a situation described in the following words of gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore:-

"if i were the soil, if I were the water, if i were the grass or fruit or flower, if i were to roam about the earth with beasts and birds, there would be nothing to fear In never-ending ties wherever i go, it will be the limitless me. "

( 2 ) ONE does not have to go far back in the memory lane and most of us can recollect the horror and agony suffered by every right thinking citizen of this country as to what was being experienced. The agony of those who actually underwent the experience and dejection at the failure of the state machinery to ensure the life and liberty constitutionally granted to them, cannot be expressed in words. Till date, cases relating to prosecution of persons accused of involvement in the riots which occurred are ending in courts.

( 3 ) THERE has been little success at bringing the guilty to book and this has only compounded the hopelessness in the minds of victims.

( 4 ) ARTICLE 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees as a fundamental right to every citizen of this country personal liberty which is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The very Preamble ensures liberty, equality and fraternity to the citizens of India promise of which the nation is reminded each time communal violence and riots erupt. Undoubtedly, the state is obligated to ensure that the rights of individuals or group of persons under Article 21 of the constitution of India are not and cannot be violated.

( 5 ) AS noticed in the afore-stated judgment, it is the bounden duty and responsibility of the state to secure and safeguard life and liberty of an individual from mob or violence. That these riots occurred on account of laxity and indifference of the administration in enforcing law and order cannot be doubted. If expeditious and timely action is taken effectively and efficiently, undoubtedly such riots can be prevented or curtailed. The state is enjoined to implement the expressed will and give full effect to the constitutional promises. The message to those guilty must be clear and unequivocal that their actions would not be tolerated and that they would be strictly dealt with. Simultaneously, the state cannot ignore its duty in ensuring the creation of civilised values and behaviour.

( 6 ) NOTICING the sweep of Article 21, the Apex court in the judgment reported at JT 1996 (1) SC 163 entitled the National