Custodial Death Violates Article 21: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Despite Pending Criminal Proceedings

A Breach of Constitutional Trust: Gauhati Court Rules on Custodial Death Compensation

In a landmark order, the Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that the State bears strict liability for custodial deaths, holding that the "precious right" to life under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be extinguished by police arrest. Dismissing the argument that compensation must await the conclusion of criminal trials, the court directed the State of Assam to pay a total of Rs. 25 lakhs to the widow of Santosh Hojai, who perished while in police custody in 2020.

The division bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan delivered the verdict, emphasizing that monetary compensation serves as a necessary palliative for the state's failure to protect a citizen's basic human dignity.

The Tragedy at Harangajao

The case dates back to April 2020, when Santosh Hojai, a businessman from Dima Hasao, was abducted from his home by five gunmen in plainclothes, later identified as police personnel. Despite initial resistance from authorities to register an FIR, intervention by the Gauhati High Court led to a SIT investigation and later a CID probe.

The investigation revealed a harrowing sequence of events: the victim was subjected to brutal torture in various locations, including the Superintendent of Police’s office, before dying in a police vehicle. The accused officials—including the then-SP and DySP—further attempted to destroy evidence, desecrating the body and manipulating official records.

Arguments: Public Law vs. Private Law

The State argued against the payment of compensation, asserting that the charges were still pending trial and that the victim's death during custody had not yet been legally proven. They cited the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 , which limits death compensation to significantly lower amounts.

Conversely, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the failure to protect the petitioner’s husband was a blatant violation of Article 21. Citing precedents like Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu , the petitioner asserted that custodial violence is a "matter of deep concern" that demands immediate relief under public law, regardless of the status of ongoing criminal proceedings.

Legal Analysis: Upholding the Rule of Law

The High Court drew a sharp distinction between private law tort remedies and public law constitutional remedies. The court noted that waiting for the "leisurely" process of a criminal trial would be a "lip-service" to the fundamental rights of the citizen.

"The action of the State, however, must be 'right, just and fair'. Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be 'right nor just nor fair' and, therefore, would be impermissible," the court observed, echoing the principles laid down in D.K. Basu .

Key Observations

• On the Nature of Custodial Torture : "Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected."
• On the Necessity of Compensation : "The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest... The State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights."
• On the Timing of Relief : "It is not necessary to wait till the conclusion of the criminal trial... to reach to the conclusion that the Police officers were in fact responsible for the custodial death of the deceased and then pay compensation."

The Final Verdict: Accountability at the Helm

The court ordered the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs in addition to the Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded as interim relief. Crucially, the court granted the State of Assam the liberty to recover this amount from the individual officials found guilty of the crime. By doing so, the judgment reinforces the principle of individual accountability for state functionaries, ensuring that the burden of compensation does not rest solely on the public exchequer but reaches those who abused their authority under the shield of the uniform.