SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16313

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J
Tsufuchu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.)/3/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Neiteo Koza, K Arkha Achumi, Limika Kinimi, L B Jungio
For the Respondents: Yangerwati, L.T. Sangtam

State liability to pay compensation under public law for the violation of fundamental rights is based on strict liability, which is distinct from private law tort claims and not barred by sovereign immunity, ex-gratia payments, or the availability of alternative civil remedies.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14, 15, 19 and 21 - Article 32 and 226 - Violation of fundamental rights - Indiscriminate firing by Security Forces - Compensation for infringement of right to life - Whether monetary compensation in public law is maintainable despite prior ex-gratia payments and existence of alternative civil remedy.

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Public Law Remedy - Principle of strict liability invoked against the State for the unlawful acts of its functionaries - Sovereign immunity is not a valid defense for infringement of fundamental rights - Scope of award of compensation is remedial and distinct from private law tort actions - Compensation serves to redress established violation of the right to life.

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, representing two deceased minors and one injured survivor, filed a writ petition seeking compensation for an incident on 16.07.2015 where Security Forces indulged in indiscriminate firing at Wuzu Village, Nagaland. A Judicial Inquiry Commission confirmed the incident, stating that the firing was unjustified and resulted in casualties of innocent civilians. The state had previously provided ex-gratia, and the National Human Rights Commission had suggested recommendations, which the petitioners seek to be enhanced through court intervention.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the incident was not accidental but resulted from irresponsible behavior by security personnel. It affirmed that public law remedies under Articles 226 and 32 are autonomous, and that ex-gratia payments or NHRC recommendations do not preclude the court from awarding appropriate compensation for human rights violations.

Issues: The main issues were whether a writ petition is maintainable for damages when alternative remedies exist, and whether the court can award compensation over and above previously received ex-gratia payments for the loss of life and permanent injury caused by State actors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that compensation for the violation of Article 21 is a public law remedy predicated on strict liability, which is distinct from private law tort damages; sovereign immunity cannot be invoked as a defense for the infringement of fundamental rights.

Result: Petition disposed of with a direction for the payment of additional compensation to the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving loss of life and injury due to state action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding maintainability, alternative remedies, and existing ex-gratia payments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. judicial recognition of unjustified state action based on enquiry reports. (Para 13 , 14)
4. application of the constitutional principle of strict liability and public law compensation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. final direction for payment of compensation and disposal of the writ petition. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

The instant writ petition has been filed by the 3 (three) petitioners with the following prayers:-

i) to direct the Respondents that 1(one) family member of each petitioner no. 1,2 and 3 be given employment in the government service within the State or Central Department.

ii) Pass an order of monetary amends as a mode of redressal by ordering the Respondents to pay compensation amount of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) each in favour of petitioner No. 1 and 2 who are the biological brothers of deceased Aso and Tüzali for flagrant infringement of Article 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution; for depriving them of their right to life and for failing to secure their rights by the Respondents keeping in mind the mental trauma and irreparable loss incurred to the family consequent upon their unjustified killing.

iii) Pass an order of monetary amends as a mode of redressal by ordering the Respondents to pay compensation amount of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) in favour of petitioner No.3 for the permanent injury inflicted upon her and for preventing her from enjoying her fundamental rights under Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 guaranteed by the Constitution due to the act of omission and commission by the Respondents.

2. The facts of the instant case is that on 15.07.2015, a patrolling unit of 12 Para Commandoes (SF) and 46 Assam Rifles was engaged in a shootout with NSCN (K), one of the insurgency groups in Nagaland. This incident took place in Avangkhu Village, Meluri Sub-Division, Phek District. In the shootout two (2) cadres of the NSCN-(K) were killed one of them being from Wuzu village. On the next date i.e., 16.07.2015 the villagers of Wuzu village gathered at Wuzu village to request Major Surinder Singh of the 46 Assam Rifles to handover the mortal remains of one of the slain NSCN (K) cadre who hailed from their village in order to give him a proper burial as per the customary practices of the Nagas.

3. While the villagers were pleading with Major Surinder Singh, a blank fire was fired by the occupant of the Gypsy vehicle of the Army convoy which was immediately followed by indiscriminate firing upon the innocent villagers by the occupants of the fourth and fifth vehicles in the Convoy of the 46 Assam Rifles /12 Para Commandos(SF). The spot where the firing took place was outside the residence of one Shri Yichuli. The firing lasted for 20 minutes and the convoy fled away thereafter towards their camp at Akhegwo.

4. In the indiscriminate firing by the 46 Assam Rifles and 12 Para Commandos (SF), under the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8, Miss Aso, aged 13 years, and Mr. Tüzali, aged 14 years were killed and the petitioner No. 3 was injured in her right arm.

5. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers of the two (2) children, Ms Aso, aged 13 years, and Mr. Tüzali, aged 14 years who were killed and the petitioner No. 3 is a survivor of the incident who has been permanently disabled for life as the injuries sustained from the bullets caused permanent injury.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Neiteo Koza, Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC for respondents 1, 2, 5, 6 & 8 and Mr. L.T. Sangtam learned Addl AG for the respondents 3, 4, and 7.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2 (two) Children who were killed, were outstanding students, and obedient and sincere children. However, their lives have been cut sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top