The central legal principle established in the judgment is that the State and its officials can be held vicariously liable for dereliction of duty leading to loss of life, entitling the aggrieved party to claim monetary compensation under public law based on strict liability for breach of fundamental rights.

Anil Dev Singh, J. –

This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners, wife and two children of Head Constable Om Parkash, Malkhana Incharge, PS Naraina, who was killed in a rocket explosion, claim compensation for his death.

2. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Om Parkash and the second and the third petitioners are his children. The first respondent is the Government of NCT of Delhi, while the second and the third respondents are the Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, PS Naraina, respectively.

3. Om Parkash, at the time of his death, was Head Constable with the Delhi Police and was serving as Incharge, Malkhana, Police Station Naraina, under the immediate control of the third respondent. On January 31, 1996 an information was received at Police Station Naraina that a standard army rocket was lying near Post No. 6, Commercial Railway Lines. On receipt of the information, case under section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered vide FIR No. 19/96 dated January 31, 1996 at PS Naraina. On the same day the rocket was seized by SI Manoj Kumar of PS Naraina in the presence of SI Kapil Dev and SI Jaiveer Singh of Bomb Disposal Squad. Since it was a live rocket the same was kept outside the Police Station Naraina surrounded by sand bags. In order to secure assistance to defuse the rocket, SI Manoj Kumar approached the Army Headquarters (for short the Army HQ). On February 3, 1996 the Army HQ by a written communication asked the respondents to arrange insurance covers for the personnel who were being detailed to undertake the job as per the following details : (a) Rs. 12,00,000/- for one Junior Commissioned Officer, and (b) Rs. 10,00,000/- for each of the five rankers. It appears that the respondents did not arrange the insurance cover and instead asked Sub Inspector Chunni Lal of the Bomb Disposal Squad to defuse and dismantle the rocket. Accordingly, on February 10, 1996 SI Chunni Lal dismantled the rocket into five pieces after supposedly defusing the same and taking x-ray thereof. The five pieces of the rocket were sealed in a plastic bag and kept as a case property in respect of case FIR No. 19/96 dated January 31, 1996 in the charge of Head Constable Om Prakash. It is not disputed on both sides that on May 15, 1997 at about 8.45 a.m. the rocket exploded while HC Om Prakash was taking out the case properties pertaining to the cases fixed for hearing in various courts on that date. It is also not disputed that in the process of locating the required case properties he had taken out the case property of FIR No. 19/96. HC Om Prakash and Constable Varinder sustained injuries as a result of the explosion and they were admitted to Safdarjung Hospital. In respect of the incident a case FIR No. 198/97 under section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 read with section 377 Indian Penal Code was registered at PS Naraina. On May 24, 1997 HC Om Prakash succumbed to the injuries. Thereupon section 304A Indian Penal Code was substituted in place of section 337 Indian Penal Code in the FIR. It appears that the case is still under investigation. Apart from the registration of the FIR no magisterial inquiry was ordered into the cause of the incident leading to the death of HC Om Parkash.

4. The very fact that the rocket exploded shows that it was not defused and the same was live. By keeping live explosive device in the Malkhana lives of persons on duty and those visiting the Police Station Naraina were endangered. It is significant to note that the Army HQ had agreed to defuse the rocket, but the respondents did not provide the requisite insurance covers for the army personnel with the result that they did not defuse the rocket. No reason has been given by the respondents why the insurance covers were not provided as demanded by the Army HQ. Obviously, the respondents were trying to save money at the cost of the lives of the persons on duty at PS Naraina. It is not claimed by the res