Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT, SHILLONG
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Balawan Pala - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 66/2012
Decided On : 21-03-2014
CUSTODIAL TORTURE - COMPENSATION - STRICT LIABILITY - PUBLIC LAW REMEDY - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTICLE 21 - ARTICLE 226 - POLICE PERSONNEL - ASSAULT - TORTURE - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - ORDER - PENALTY - CENSOR - EXEMPLARY DAMAGES - AWARD OF COMPENSATION - PUBLIC LAW PROCEEDINGS - PRIVATE LAW PROCEEDINGS - STATE LIABILITY - TORTIOUS ACTS - AGENCY - MONETARY COMPENSATION - EXEMPLARY DAMAGES - INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT - CIVILIZED PUBLIC POWER - LEGAL SYSTEM - PROTECTION OF INTERESTS - PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS - RELIEF - MONETARY AMENDS - BREACH OF PUBLIC DUTY - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - TORT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a local taxi driver, was assaulted by the respondent No. 8, a police personnel, while he was in police custody. The petitioner filed a complaint with the police and also filed an application under the Right to Information Act. The departmental enquiry found the respondent No. 8 guilty of the assault and the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of 'censure' on him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the assault on the petitioner by the police personnel was a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the State is liable for the tortious acts committed by its agency and that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the assault on the petitioner by the police personnel was a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the State is liable for the tortious acts committed by its agency? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the assault on the petitioner by the police personnel was a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on the following precedents: * State of Rajasthan vs. Vidhyawati: 1962 Supp(2) SCR 989 : AIR 1962 SC 933 * Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana: (1980) 3 SCC 70 * Khatri & Ors. (II) vs. State of Bihar & Ors: (1981) 1 SCC 627 * Khatri (IV) vs. State of Bihar: (1981) 2 SCC 493 * Rudul Shah V. State of Bihar: (1983) 4 SCC 141 * Bhim Singh vs. State of J & K: (1985) 4 SCC 677 * Saheli, a women's Resources Centre vs. Commissioner of Police Headquarters & Ors: (1990) 1 SCC 422 * Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa: (1993) 2 SCC 746 * D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B.: (1997) 1 SCC 416 * Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors: (2006) 3 SCC 178 * Munshi Singh Gautam (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of M.P.: (2005) 9 SCC 631 * Massoda Parveen vs. Union of India & Ors: (2007) 4 SCC 548 * A.S. Mohammed Rafi vs. State of Tamil Nade & Ors: (2011) 1 SCC 688 * Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors: (2012) 8 SCC 1 2. The Court held that the State is liable for the tortious acts committed by its agency. The Court relied on the following precedents: * State of Rajasthan vs. Vidhyawati: 1962 Supp(2) SCR 989 : AIR 1962 SC 933 * Rudul Shah V. State of Bihar: (1983) 4 SCC 141 * Saheli, a women's Resources Centre vs. Commissioner of Police Headquarters & Ors: (1990) 1 SCC 422 3. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights. The Court relied on the following precedents: * Rudul Shah V. State of Bihar: (1983) 4 SCC 141 * Bhim Singh vs. State of J & K: (1985) 4 SCC 677 * Saheli, a women's Resources Centre vs. Commissioner of Police Headquarters & Ors: (1990) 1 SCC 422 * Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa: (1993) 2 SCC 746 * D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B.: (1997) 1 SCC 416 * Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors: (2006) 3 SCC 178 * Massoda Parveen vs. Union of India & Ors: (2007) 4 SCC 548 * A.S. Mohammed Rafi vs. State of Tamil Nade & Ors: (2011) 1 SCC 688
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only to the petitioner within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order. The Court further directed that out of the said total amount of Rs. 40,000/-, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only should be recovered from the salary of the respondent No. 8 after payment to the petitioner.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.In this case the petitioner sought for the relief:-(i) For issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents to conduct afresh impartial enquiry into the case and to submit a report of the enquiry before the Court and further direct the State respondents to take strong action against the respondent No. 8 Shri. R.R. Pde and other police personnel involved in the incident and; (ii) To award suitable compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only to the petitioner for violation of his fundamental rights and human rights and also mental stress and strain. Heard Mrs. NG Shylla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-7. Also heard Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8.
2. Factual Matrix:
The petitioner is a local taxi driver by profession plying taxi within the city of Shillong. On 09.09.2011 at 9:15 am, the petitioner was driving his local taxi bearing registration No. ML 05 D 9327 at Laitumkhrah Road, Shillong. On reaching Ramkrishna Mission Dispensary, the rider of a private two-wheeler vehicle, who was wearing civilian clothes, honked his horn to the petitioner for allowing him to pass through. During that hour, Dhanketi-Laitumkhrah-Fire Brigade road was a one way route due to school peak hours and further, there was a traffic jam; and as a result of which, the petitioner's taxi could not allow the rider of the two-wheeler vehicle to pass through. But somehow, the rider of the said two-wheeler vehicle overtook the petitioner's taxi and stopped to abuse him with foul language and threatened to take him to the police station.
3. The petitioner continued to drive his taxi and on reaching Jylli-Shop, Nongthymmai, to his utter shock and surprise, one Havildar Traffic police personnel intercepted the petitioner's taxi and stated that since the petitioner had committed a traffic offence, the petitioner had to accompany him to Madanriting Traffic Branch, Madanriting Police Station. The petitioner could not recall as to having committed any traffic offence. At the same time, the petitioner called upon Local Member of District Council (MDC), Mr. Laitphlang Kharkongor for necessary help. The petitioner came to know that the same person, who had driven the private two-wheeler vehicle and abused and threatened him, was wearing full police uniform (respondent No. 8).
4. The respondent No. 8 came forward and questioned the petitioner as to why the petitioner had not allowed him to overtake. Further, the petitioner was accused of having violated the traffic rules, and the respondent No. 8 without issuing challan asked the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the alleged violation of traffic rules despite the fact that the petitioner had never violated the traffic rules. The petitioner informed the respondent No. 8 and other police personnel that as it was early morning, he had not been able to earn much money and his difficulties to pay the huge fine of Rs. 500/-. The respondent No. 8 reduced fine to "Rs. 200" only. The petitioner searched his money in the taxi but found only Rs. 170/-, to which the respondent No. 8 stated that the petitioner had an hour to get the money or else, he would have to retrieve the taxi from the court. The petitioner pleaded to the respondent No. 8 that this would cause him much hardship as he was the sole bread earner of his family. The said MDC, who had come to the Police Station, went out of the Police Station compound with the intention to borrow money for the petitioner so as to pay the amount demanded by the respondent No. 8. At this juncture, the respondent No. 8 without any provocation whatsoever punched the petitioner on his face, and the respondent No. 8 was subsequently joined by the other police personnel who together dragged the petitioner inside the Police Station building and pushed the petitioner to a corner near a toilet and kicked the petitioner viciously. The sa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
