Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (IMPHAL BENCH)
H.N. Sarma and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
Chanambam Menjor Singh – Appellants
Vs.
Comdt./C.O. 61 CRPF and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 01.06.2006
Headnote:
WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS - ILLEGAL DETENTION - TORTURE - COMPENSATION - [ARTICLE 21, 22, 32, 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA] - The victim, a practicing advocate, was illegally detained, tortured, and assaulted by the personnel of 61 Bn. CRPF. The court, exercising its public law jurisdiction, directed the wrongdoers to pay compensation to the victim for the infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the victim for illegal detention, torture, mental agony, and forfeiture of his scooter.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a practicing advocate, was arrested by the personnel of 61 Bn. CRPF on 24.3.1995 and was kept in illegal detention till 29.3.1995. During this period, he was tortured and assaulted by the CRPF personnel. The victim filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus and compensation for the illegal detention and torture.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the victim's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India were violated by the illegal detention and torture. The court also held that the victim was entitled to compensation for the infringement of his fundamental rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the victim was illegally detained and tortured by the personnel of 61 Bn. CRPF? 2. Whether the victim is entitled to compensation for the infringement of his fundamental rights?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim was illegally detained and tortured by the personnel of 61 Bn. CRPF. The court also held that the victim was entitled to compensation for the infringement of his fundamental rights. The court relied on the following principles: (i) The right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The State is liable for the constitutional tort and the constitutional tort denotes the case in which compensation or exemplary damages were awarded by the court while a constitutional right was violated. (iii) The award of compensation for established infringement of indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system whereunder their right and interests shall be protected and preserved.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the wrongdoers to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the victim for the infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court also directed the wrongdoers to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as fee for counsel of the petitioner in the present writ petition.
T. Nandkumar Singh, J.
1. In the present case, the victim of dehumanizing assault and torture in the custody of protector of law in uniform, unfortunately, is a lawyer who fights and pleads law for the citizens of India for protection of their right and liberty guaranteed by and under the Constitution of India in the court of law. The instances of dehumanizing torture and assault in the custody of the guardian of law are ever increasing. Even a lawyer became the victim of torture and assault in the custody of law protector in uniform; it is unthinkable what would be the situation in the case of an ordinary citizen of India. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in the custody which have assumed alarming proportion raise serious question about the credibility to the Rule of Law and administration of criminal systems. No doubt it is true that the cry for justice is so loud that it deafens ear of the peace loving citizens of India that they cannot live in a peaceful atmosphere and they are disturbed with the apprehension that they may be one of the victims of torture and assault in the custody of the law protector in uniform.
2. The Constitution of India is adorned with Articles 20, 21 and 22 which are almost in consonance with the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly 217A(iii) on 10th December, 1948. Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, read as follows:
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3. Everyone has the right of life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
3. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1963 CriLJ 329 the Apex Court held that the term "life" indicates something more than mere animal existence and so also in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale 1983 (2) LLJ 256 SC. No doubt, the Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984] 2 SCR 67 held that the right to life under Article 9.1 means right to live with dignity, free from exploitation. The Apex Court is of the similar view in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 and Board of Trustees of Port of Bangalore v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni 1983 (1) LLJ 1 SC.
4. The word "life" has been used, prominently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. "Life" is recognized as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and it has to have the same meaning and interpretation as had been placed with that word by the Apex Court in its various decisions relating to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The meaning of word "life" cannot be narrowed down. Lord Diplock in Salomon v. Commissioner of Customs and Excise, (1996) 3 All ER 871 states that there is a prima facie presumption that the Parliamentarian does not intend to act in breach of international law. Again, Lord Bridge in Brind v. Secretary of State for Home Department (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL) observed that it is well settled that in construing any provision in domestic legislation which is ambiguous in the sense that it is capable of a meaning wh
