Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 1041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A.K. Sikri and Manmohan Singh, JJ.
Police Commissioner and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Yash Pal Sharma - Respondent
RFA No. 364 of 2003
Decided On: 30.09.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anju Bhattacharya, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Alok Kumar, Manisha Aggarwal, Advs. and Party-in-person
The main legal point established is that the police's use of force must be reasonable and justified, especially in the context of peaceful demonstrations, to avoid violating citizens' fundamental rights.
Headnote:
Police Force - Excessive Use of Force - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 144 - Punjab Police Rules, Rule 14.56 - Violation of Fundamental Rights - Compensation - Legal Position on Use of Force
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an advocate, was part of a peaceful demonstration against promulgation of orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police used excessive force, resulting in severe injuries to the plaintiff. The trial court found the police's action unlawful and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the police used excessive force, violating the plaintiff's fundamental rights. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for shock, mental agony, pain, suffering, indignation, loss of reputation, and insult.
Issues: Whether the use of force by the police against the plaintiff was necessary, legal, and just - Whether the force used was illegal, abusive, or excessive - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the police's use of force was excessive and not justified. It emphasized the legal position that citizens have the fundamental right of speech and expression, covering peaceful demonstrations. The court also cited precedents establishing the entitlement to compensation for violation of fundamental rights by the State.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decision, awarding damages to the plaintiff.
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The Police Commissioner of Delhi, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Bal Kishan, Union of India and Delhi Administration (all appellants before us) were the defendants in the suit for recovery of damages filed by the respondent herein (hereafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’). The plaintiff had claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs from the appellants (hereafter referred to as the ‘defendants’) alleging that the police had used violent force against him in which he was also inflicted with serious injuries whereby his fundamental rights of life, liberty and personal safety as well as right of freedom and expression were violated. The learned Addl. District Judge (ADJ) has decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 1,12,500/- vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2002. Subject matter of this appeal is the said judgment and decree.
2. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, he had alleged that on 25.2.1993, the Commissioner of Police had promulgated orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) within the Union Territory of Delhi. The promulgation of these orders was not liked by some persons, including some Advocates practicing at Patiala House Courts. The plaintiff is also among those Advocates. Accordingly, they decided to raise a democratic voice by way of protest against the said order. It was further alleged that about 50 lawyers of Patiala House Courts, including the plaintiff, when stepped out of Gate No. 2 of the court premises in their robes, the police force swooped upon them and surrounded them. This police force was headed by Shri Bal Kishan, Assistant Commissioner of Police (defendant No. 2). The police personnel started hurling lathi blows upon the Advocates who were making peaceful demonstration. Neither any warning nor any order of dispersal was given by the police officers before inflicting lathi blows and before using force against them. The plaintiff alleged that in the process, he was beaten black and blue by lathi wielding policemen. He still kept his calm and pleaded with the policemen to desist from this cruel and brutal behaviour. The police did not pay any heed to his plea and rather responded by another lathi blow with vengeance in the orders of defendant No. 2. The hapless lawyers rushed inside Patiala House Courts for shelter. When the plaintiff reached inside the boundary of Patiala House Courts, he noticed one Shri J.P. Dixit, Advocate lying motionless on the ground floor leaning against the inside gate pillar and profusely bleeding. He was surrounding by 4-5 policemen who were still inflicting lathi blows on his body. In order to save him, the plaintiff broke through the policemen and managed to drag Shri Dixit to safety. However, this infuriated the policemen who turned their ire towards the plaintiff and started giving him the lathi blows. With great difficulty he was rescued by other Advocates. In this entire episode, the plaintiff allegedly suffered severe wounds. He consulted one Dr. Ajit Tewari, a private practitioner, who advised him certain medicines and treatment. When he noticed that the plaintiff is not recovering from injuries and as the pain was aggravating, he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital on 28.2.1993 where he was medically examined and certain x-rays were also taken. The MLC report prepared by the doctors at the Safdarjung Hospital (Ex.P-6/1) showed the following injuries:
.(i) Tenderness over left calf and foot swelling.
.(ii) Bruises over posterior aspect of calf mid level.
(iii) Bruises over lateral aspect of right shoulder/right back near spine at scapular spine level.
.(iv) Small Hematomas two 1’ x 1’ and 1’ x 1’ over occipital region.
.(v) Multiple bruises over dorsum of left hand/vertical aspect left wrist/right knee and right hand.
.(vi) Multiple bruises over back buttock.
3. Matter was reported to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court through the Additional Sessions Judge
