1. Writ petition challenging police firing on protesters — Death and injuries — Demand for independent enquiry and compensation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1813
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kalyan Rai Surana, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, JJ.
Richard Sangyung, S/O- Sri Rabindra Sangyung - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 652 of 2018
Decided On : 26-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S Borthakur, Mr. V Rajkhowa, Mr. D Gogoi
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Ms. D D Barman, Addl. Sr. Govt. Adv. ,Sc, Dima Hasao, Mr. K Goswami
For the Petitioner: Mr. S Borthakur, Mr. V Rajkhowa, Mr. D Gogoi
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Ms. D D Barman, Addl. Sr. Govt. Adv. ,Sc, Dima Hasao, Mr. K Goswami
The State is strictly liable to pay exemplary compensation under public law for the violation of fundamental rights (Article 21) caused by police excesses during the dispersal of an unlawful assembly, regardless of initial provocation or the availability of private law remedies.
Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rights - Article 21 - Police Firing - Use of excessive force - Injuries sustained above the waist by protesters indicate a violation of the right to life and liberty, regardless of initial provocation by the mob. (Para 16)
(B) Public Law Remedy - Compensation - Strict Liability - Monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights is a distinct remedy from private law damages for torts; the doctrine of sovereign immunity is inapplicable to such claims. (Para 12, 13, 18)
(C) Law and Order - Dispersal of Unlawful Assembly - Proportionate Force - While the state has the power to disperse unruly crowds, the force used must be minimum and proportional; excesses constitute a violation of human rights. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the police firing resulted in a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and whether the victims are entitled to exemplary compensation under public law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- tort
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: excessive force, inadequate compensation, flawed investigation. State: mob violence necessitated controlled firing; adequate compensation already granted. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Protesters turned violent; police used force; bullet injuries above waist indicate lapse — fundamental rights violated. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Compensation for violation of fundamental right to life under public law remedy — sovereign immunity no defence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. State directed to pay compensation to families of deceased and seriously injured victims, in addition to any earlier amount. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
6. Can compensation be awarded in public law for violation of fundamental rights by police use of excessive force?
Yes, the court can award exemplary damages under Article 226 for established violation of Article 21, based on strict liability, sovereign immunity not a defence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Does the award of compensation under public law preclude a private law claim for damages?
No, the public law compensation is independent of and in addition to any remedy in tort or criminal law available to the aggrieved party. (Para 13 , 14 , 19 )
8. What standard of proof is required for awarding compensation for police misconduct?
There must be patent and incontrovertible violation of fundamental rights; the court must evaluate if force was necessary and proportionate. (Para 15 , 16 )
9. Is the State vicariously liable for the acts of its police officers in such cases?
Yes, the State is liable and must pay compensation, with the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer police personnel later. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J
Heard Mr. V. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) setting aside and quashing the Order dated 30/01/2018 bearing Memo No. DH/CON/L&O/2018/758-62 issued by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao district, ordering for a Magisterial Enquiry into the firing incident at Maibang on 25/01/2018, and/or
(ii) setting aside and quashing the Notice dated 31/01/2018 bearing No.NCH/MENQ/RK/2018/03 issued by Sri. Ranjit Kr. Laskar, ACS, Addl. District Magistrate, Camp - Maibang, Dima Hasao, who is entrusted with the Magisterial Enquiry for the instant firing incident at Maibang on 25/01/2018, calling individual(s), organization(s), official(s) to give evidence, and/or
(iii) to conduct an independent enquiry and/or Independent enquiry by a retired Judge of Gauhati High Court into the incident of Police firing at Maibang railway station on 25/01/2018 leading to the death of two persons and gunshot injury to a dozen others, and/or
(iv) show-cause as to why an appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued so as to give full relief in the matter and/or
(v) call for the records and on perusal thereof and after hearing the parties may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may be pleased to pass such further or other order/orders as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper.”
3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under:
3.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that his brother Sunujit Sangyung, had suffered grievous injuries along with others, on account of indiscriminate firing, resorted to by police upon the peaceful protesters at Maibang Railway Station area in Dima Hasao district, on 25-01-2018. The petitioner has projected that basing on a news item published in National, as well as the local newspapers with regard to creation of a “Greater Nagalim”, and inclusion, therein, areas of Dima Hasao district, a grievance arose amongst the ‘Dimasa’ people. Further, it is projected by the petitioner, that the National News Portal, viz. “The Wire”, on 19-01-2018, had carried news item of a draft plan of the Nagaland accord being so prepared by a national organization and therein, it being proposed to include areas within the Dima Hasao district, within the proposed “Greater Nagalim”, an apprehension arose within the ‘Dimasa’ community of a deprivation being caused to them and accordingly, community organizations, like the Jadikhe Nalso Hosom (JNH), the Dimasa Apex Body; Dimasa Students Union (DSA); All Dimasa Students Union (ADSU); Dimasa Women Society (DWS); Dimasa Mothers Association (DMA), started protest programmes, against the inclusion of Dima Hasao areas within “Greater Nagalim”.
3.2. It is projected by the petitioner that on 25-01-2018, i.e. on the eve of the Republic Day celebration, protesters had gathered at the various locations across the Dima Hasao district and participated in dharna programmes. Such conglomeration of people had also occasioned in the railway track near Maibang Railway Station. It is further projected by the petitioner that the dharna programme had gone on peacefully, until around 02:30 p.m., at which time the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao, had arrived at the spot, with a strong police force and without declaring the assembly to be unlawful and/ or taking steps for dispersing the group, the police started ‘lathi’ charge on the peaceful protesters, injuring many women and minors. The said action is projected to have agitated the protesters. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao district, thereafter, without any warning had ordered for firing on unarmed protesters. Accordingly, it is alleged that the police started indis
