Allowed

Manti Devi Manti Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2022WPC/5899/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that under-trial prisoners retain fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court quashed the NHRC order denying compensation for a prisoner killed by another inmate, directing the State of Jharkhand to pay Rs. 5 lakhs each to the families of both deceased.

What did the court decide?

Directed State of Jharkhand to pay Rs. 5,00,000 each to the families of Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh and Paramjeet Singh within 60 days.

Manti Devi Manti Singh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P.(C) No. 5899 of 2009

¶3

….....

¶4

Manti Devi @ Manti Singh, Mother of deceased Promod Singh @ Gautam Singh, W/o Sri Tahlu Singh, R/o Village and Post- Nawali, P.S.- Suhwal, Dist.- Gajipur, U.P. …. .....

¶5

…. ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Secretary, Department of Home, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

S. P. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

¶10

Jail Superintendent, Ghaghidih Jail, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. …. ..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents/ State : Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II ........

¶13

10/22.03.2022.

¶14

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This matter has been heard on several dates including 15.03.2022 when the learned Advocate General, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has assisted this Court along with Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II learned counsel for the State.

¶16

Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate direction(s) upon the respondent State to forthwith pay an amount of Rs.50/- lacs towards compensation against admitted murder in jail premises on 20.03.2009.

¶17

Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that son of the petitioner was in custody in a different case as an undertrial prisoner. While facing trial and remain in custody, he was killed and First Information Report vide Parsudih P.S. Case No.51/2009 dated 20.03.2009 corresponding to G.R. No.684/2009 registered under Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC has been instituted against 40-50 unknown prisoners.

¶18

Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatthe matter went before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken action against officers, but the compensation has been denied by the National

¶19

¶20

Human Rights Commission vide order dated 27.02.2012 in Case No.1522/34/6/08-09-JCD dated 09.02.2012, which may be reproduced

¶21

hereunder: -

¶22

NATIONAL HUMNAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

¶23

(LAW DIVISION)

¶24

FARIDKOT HOUSE

¶25

COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-110001

¶26

Case No. 1522/34/6/08-09-3CD Dated 09 02-2012

¶27

¶28

SUPDT. MANDAL KARA GHAGHIDIH,

¶29

JAMSHEDPUR,

¶30

EAST SINGHBHUM, JHARKHAND,

¶31

Sir/Madam,

¶32

With reference to your complaint dated 20/03/2009, | am directed to say that the matter was considered by the Commission on 01/02/2012. The Commission has made the following direction.

¶33

it is a case of death of UTP Paramjeet Singh and UTP Pramod Kumar @ Guatham who were detained in Central Prison, Ghaghidih, District Jamshedpur, Jharkhand during scuffle between two group of criminals in prison.

¶34

After receiving the reports, the Commission on 25" July 2011 observed and ordered. “On the basis of above, it is established that the Jail Administration has failed to discharge the duties which resulted into the death of UTPs, Paramjeet Singh s/o Ram Naresh Singh and Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautham, s/o Shiv Prasad Singh who were in the custody of State. Thus, the State of Jharkhand has failed to protect the lives the UTPs which is a case of violation of human rights.

¶35

Accordingly. it is directed that a notice u/s 18 (a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand calling upon him to show cause as to why compensation may not be recommended to the next of kins of the deceased.

¶36

DG (Prisons), Jharkhand be asked to initiate departmental action against the prison officers/officials.

¶37

Response within six weeks”

¶38

When no report received reminder was issued on 5^th October 2011.

¶39

Pursuant to the directions of the Commission, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand Home Department vide communication dated 9^th November 2011 submitted that the Government is in agreement in providing interim relief to the next of kins of the deceased, The order of the Commission may kindly be communicated to the Government

¶40

From the perusal of the Magisterial Enquiry Report, it is clear that one Pramod Kumar @ Guatham somehow managed a revolver in the prison and fired shot towards

¶41

¶42

Paramjeet Singh who died at the spot and thereafter the other criminals in the prison caught hold of Pramod Kumar and inflicted injuries with hard blunt objects. He also fell unconscious and in the Prison Hospital, he was also declared dead. On the basis of the Magisterial Enquiry Report, it was found that the Jailor, Assistant Jailor and Warder on duty were placed under suspension and departmental action has been initiated against them.

¶43

Since both the deceased were hardcore criminal and they used illegal means to kill each other in prison, they and their family members are not entitled for any compensation u/s 18 (a){i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

¶44

On the basis of above, since action has been initiated against the errant prison staff and the criminal cases have also been registered in connection with the murder of both the criminal in prison, further intervention of the Commission is not called for , the case is closed.

¶45

This is for your information.

¶46

Assistant Registrar (LAW)

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has submitted that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its order dated 27.02.2012 has held that jail administration and the state of Jharkhand failed to discharge their duties which resulted into death of the deceased who was under-trial prison and the same is the violation of the Human Right, but in spite of such findings, the commission denied the compensation to the deceased under section 18 (a)(i) of the Protection of human Rights Act,1993,as such, this court may consider the same and award compensation to the kin of deceased under-trial prisoner.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of various Hon’ble High Courts in the catena of judgments has granted compensation to the kin of the deceased prisoners, under trial prisoners and convicts also, which State of Jharkhand has not taken notice, as such, the instant writ may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted compensation accordingly.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binod Singh has placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of NilabatiBehera (Smt) @ LalitaBehera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 wherein the Apex court has held that relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, is appropriate in case of

¶50

¶51

infringement of right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution . Paras-34, 35 & 36 of which is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶52

“34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court molds the relief by granting "compensation" in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of exempellary damages awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and persecute the offender under the penal law.

¶53

35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers.to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with RudulSah v. State of Bihar and Anr., [1983] 3 SCR 508 granted monetary

¶54

¶55

relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the Courts have molded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply And the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma, J. 36. In the facts of the present case on the findings already recorded, the mode of redress which commends appropriate is to make an order of monetary amend in favour of the petitioner for the custodial death of her son by ordering payment of compensation by way of exemplary damages. For the reasons recorded by Brother Verma, J., I agree that the State of Orissa should pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Board. I concur with the view expressed by Brother Verma, J. and the directions given by him in the judgment in all respects.”

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further submitted that the aforesaid judgment i.e. Nilabati Behera (Supra) has been reiterated by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Malti Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 2 PLJR 417 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has granted compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the kin of the deceased while in custody.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kewal Pati (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 600, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted compensation of Rs. 1 lakhs to the kin of deceased convict, who was killed by the co-accused. Relevant para of the judgment is profitably be quoted hereunder: -

¶58

¶59

2. Ramjit Upadhayaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co-accused. It was due to this strictness in his behaviour as Nambardar that he was attacked and killed by Happu — a co-accused. Even though Ramjit Upadhayaya was a convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law (See Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1981 SC 746] and A.K. Roy v. Union of India [(1982) 1 SCC 271 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 152 : AIR 1982 SC 710] ). Therefore, he was entitled to protection. Since the killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place while he was serving his sentence due to failure of the authorities to protect him, we are of opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.

¶60

3. In the result this petition is allowed by directing that the State of U.P. shall deposit a sum of Rs 1,00,000 within three months from today, with the Registrar of this Court. A sum of Rs 50,000 out of this amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and the interest of it shall be paid to the wife and the children. The remaining amount shall be paid to the wife by the Registrar after being satisfied about the identification of the petitioner. The amount in deposit shall be paid to the wife on her option after all the children become major. In case of petitioner's death prior to the children becoming major, the amount shall be divided equally between the surviving children.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 178 wherein the Apex court has held that effective remedy for the violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution is award of compensation. Para-31 & 38 of the judgment is profitably be quoted hereunder: -

¶62

“ 31. Though illegal detention and custodial torture were recognized as violations of the fundamental rights of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21, to begin with, only the following reliefs were being granted in writ petitions under Article 32 or 226 :

¶63

a) direction to set at liberty the person detained, if the complaint was one of illegal detention.

¶64

b) direction to the concerned Government to hold an inquiry and take action against the officers responsible for the violation.

¶65

¶66

c) If the enquiry or action taken by the concerned department was found to be not satisfactory, to direct an inquiry by an independent agency, usually the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶67

Award of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, in addition to the private law remedy under the Law of Torts, was evolved in the last two and half decades.

¶68

38. It is thus now well settled that award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure.”

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further submitted that aforesaid issues have also been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagalpur Blinding Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 2 SCC 493 , Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 , wherein the Apex court has awarded compensation in case where state failed to protect life and liberty enshrined under article 21 of the constitution of India.

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad & Others Vs. Shivakka (2) & Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 419 wherein it was held that writ for the compensation is maintainable and awarded the compensation to the family of the deceased.Para-16 of which is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶71

“16. In view of the proposition laid down in the aforementioned judgments, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and the direction given by him for payment of compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 5 was rightly affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. At the same time, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the High Court is less than just. The High Court should have taken note of the fact that the only bread winner of the family was killed in a barbaric manner and awarded adequate compensation keeping in view the ratio of the judgments of this Court including Chairman, Railway Board. v. Chandrima Das (2000)2 SCC 465.”

¶72

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Amandeep Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19844 and has submitted that the case of Amandeep is squarely covered with the facts of the instant petition. In the case of Amandeep(supra), Surinder Mohan was a life convict, he was in the custody and it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court that it is incumbent upon the jail administration to guarantee the life and safety of the inmates and if the administration fails to safeguard the same, the kin of the deceased are entitled for compensation. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: -

¶74

“The Court was not concerned as to whether the death was caused by some other co-prisoners or by excessive or illegal action of any of the jail officials. The basic fact remains that when the husband of the petitioner was in custody the homicidal death had taken place. The jail authorities were to ensure the safety and protection of all the inmates and there is definitely lapse in the security. In that case uncle of the petitioner filed an FIR with the police raising suspicion on the covillager of the deceased, who were also lodged at the relevant time and the matter was still under investigation. The compensations in that case were awarded.

¶75

16. Even in the present case had there been strict observance of various guidelines given in the Jail Manual, there would not be any possibility of a prisoner, who was lying asleep at night being killed by coprisoner by hitting him with a steel chair.

¶76

17. In my view there was a total failure of the Jail Authorities in keeping proper security to guarantee the life and safety of the inmates, resulting into homicidal death of Surinder Mohan. The disturbing feature is that Gurbachan Singh, culprit, who was an under-trial prisoner in FIR No. 162 dated 17.05.1993 under Sections 302, 449 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 and Surinder Mohan, a life convict, were kept together in the same ward of the Central Jail.

¶77

18. Section 27 of Prisons Act, 1894 says that the requisitions of this Act

¶78

with respect to the separation of prisoners are as follows: —

¶79

(1) xx XX XX (2) xx XX xx

¶80

(3) unconvicted criminal prisoners shall be kept apart from convicted

¶81

criminal prisoners; and

¶82

(4) xx Xx xx”

¶83

19. Therefore, there was blatant violation of the above provision of the

¶84

¶85

Prisons Act, 1894 for which any kind of justification cannot be accepted.

¶86

20. The State cannot oppose and choke the voice of a person solely on the ground that he was suffering imprisonment. There may be unruly elements in jail but they cannot be allowed to become unruly and granted licence to kill another, may be out of vengeance or may be for reasons best known to them. When the duty of the State comes into play, it amounts to violation of the human rights.

¶87

21. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded compensation for the wrong committed by the State through its functionaries in protecting the life of Surinder Mohan, deceased, while in prison.

¶88

22. Now coming to next question, the petitioner's counsel mainly relies upon the judgment of this Court in Court on its own Motion v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 790, wherein the amount of Rs. 10 lacs as compensation was awarded. That was a case of death resulting due to torture and brutal beating of the jail inmate by the Jail staff and taking place in the year 2007 and cannot be cited as an instance for awarding the amount of compensation in this case.”

¶89

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Purna Chandra Mohapatra and Another Vs. State of Odisha and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1937 wherein the reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex court where the Apex court reiterated the need to award the compensation in cases of custodial deaths.Para-28, which may profitably be quoted hereunder: -

¶90

“ 28. In Re-inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons reported in (2017) 10 SCC 658 the Supreme Court reiterated the need to award compensation in cases of custodial deaths and observed:

¶91

“55. Over the last several years, there have been discussions on the rights of victims and one of the rights of a victim of crime is to obtain compensation. Schemes for victim compensation have been framed by almost every State and that is a wholesome development. But it is important for the Central Government and the State Governments to realize that persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also victims - sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy or both. There is no reason at all to exclude their next of kin from receiving compensation only because the victim of an unnatural death is a criminal. Human rights are not dependent on the status of a person but are universal in nature. Once the issue is looked at from this perspective, it will be appreciated that merely because a person is accused of a crime or is the perpetrator of a crime and in prison custody, that person

¶92

¶93

could nevertheless be a victim of an unnatural death. Hence the need to compensate the next of kin.”

¶94

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. National Human Rights Commission reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 2271wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that enactment of the protection of Human Rights Act,1933 is an intrinsic part of the enforcement of the fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Para- 14 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶95

14. Considering the scope of the powers of recommendation under the Act, 1993 (Act No. 10 of 1994) and, in particular, referring to Section 18 of the Act, this Court in State of U.P. v. NHRC (2016) SCC OnLine All 239, held as follows: —

¶96

“13. Section 18 deals with the steps to be taken during and after the enquiry and is in the following terms:

¶97

“ 18. Steps during and after inquiry.-The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:—

¶98

(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority-

¶99

(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

¶100

(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;

¶101

(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit.

¶102

(b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary;

¶103

(c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider

¶104

¶105

necessary;

¶106

(d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative;

¶107

(e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission;

¶108

(f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.”

¶109

14. Section 18 vests wide powers in the Commission. Under clause (a), it is empowered to recommend the payment of compensation or damages to the concerned government or authority where the enquiry has disclosed the commission of a violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of a violation of human rights or abetment thereof. The provisions of Section 18(a) correspond to the functions of the Commission specified in Section 12(a). The Commission is entitled to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary. The Commission under clause (c) of Section 18 can recommend to the concerned government or authority at any stage of the enquiry to grant interim relief to the victim or the members of his family. Under clause (e), the Commission has to send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority which shall, within a period of one month or such further time as may be allowed, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Commission.

¶110

15. These provisions emphasize three aspects. First, the enactment of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is an intrinsic part of the enforcement of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Equally, by enacting the legislation, Parliament has evinced an intention to enact legislation in compliance with India's obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Secondly, the Commission is a high powered body which has been vested with exhaustive powers to order an investigation, conduct enquiries and for which it is vested with all the powers of a civil court. Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18 are not evidently an exhaustive enumeration of the

¶111

¶112

powers of the Commission since the use of the expression “and in particular” would indicate that the powers which are enumerated are illustrative in nature. The Commission follows a procedure which is governed by Section 17 for the purpose of making inquiries upon which it has to take steps in conformity with Section 18.

¶113

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. NHRC reported in AIR 2010 Allahabad 139 , wherein the Hon’ble Division bench has explained the meaning of ‘human rights and its relation to the Article 21 of the constitution. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted herein:-

¶114

“The 'human rights' means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.”

¶115

8. The definition of word “human Rights” includes rights relating to life. Any violation of rights to life can be a violation of a human rights. Human rights are thus minimal rights which every individual must have against the State or other public authority by virtue of he/she being a human being. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees life and personal liberty. Article 21 prohibits deprivation of life or personal liberty except due process of law. One of the submissions which has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases is that there is no violation of human rights hence, National Human Rights Commission and U.P. Human Rights Commission committed error in initiating proceedings under the 1993 Act.

¶116

13. According to section 18(a) where inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages as the Commission may consider necessary. Thus, the commission has jurisdiction to recommend compensation as the Commission may consider necessary. The power of the Commission under section 18 is not inhibited by any other provisions or any State Legislature or subordinate legislation. The power of the Commission under section 18 is in addition to any other provisions covering the subject matter and not in derogation of any other provisions of law. Entitlement of a person whose human rights have been violated in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions governing payment of compensation, does not in any manner create a fetter in the right of Commission to find out the magnitude of violation of human rights and award a compensation. Thus, the mere fact that under the orders issued by the U.P. Power Corporation, amount of Rs. 1,00000/ has been fixed in case of death or

¶117

¶118

injury by the Corporation, does not fetter the rights of the Commission to award compensation over and above the amount of Rs. 1,00000/-. Thus, the order of the Commission awarding compensation more than Rs. 1,00000/cannot be faulted on the above ground.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mrs. Meena Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Jhar 74 wherein the Hon’ble Court has reiterated the judgment of Kewal Pati (supra) and enhanced the compensation awarded by National Human Rights Commission, in the case of death of under-trial prisoner in the jail premises.Para-14, 15, 16 & 18, which is profitably quoted hereunder:-

¶119

“14. In the case of Smt. Kewal pati v. State of U.P., (1995) 3 SCC 600, it was held by the apex Court:

¶120

“Ramjit Upadhyaya was a convict and was working as a Nambardar in the jail. He was strict in maintaining discipline amongst the co-accused. It was due to this strictness in his behavior as Nambardar that he was attacked and killed by Happu, a co-accused. Even though Ramjit Upadhyaya was a convict and was serving his sentence yet the authorities were not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in the jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his fundamental right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law. (See: Francis Coralie Mullin y, Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and A.K. Roy . Union of India), Therefore, he was entitled to protection. Since the killing took place when he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. He is survived by his wife and three children. His untimely death has deprived the petitioner and her children of his company and affection. Since it has taken place while he was serving his sentence due to failure of the authorities to protect him, we are of the opinion that they are entitled to be compensated.”

¶121

15. In the case of Ajab Singh y. State of U.P,, (2000) 3 SCC 521, it has been observed that there can be no doubt that the respondents have not investigated the cause of death of Rishipal as they ought to have done or that, at any rate, they have not placed ail the relevant material before this Court. They have at-tempted to pull the wool over the eyes of this Court. We do not appreciate the death of persons in judicial custody. When such deaths occur, it is not only to the public at large that those holding custody are responsible; they are responsible also to the Courts under whose orders they hold such custody.

¶122

16. It was further held that State of UP. is responsible in public law for the death of Rishipal and must pay compensation to the petitioners for the same. Though, in that case, the Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to investigate about the cause of Rishipal's death after registering a case.

¶123

18. It is the prime duty of the jail authority being custodian to provide security

¶124

¶125

and safety to the life of prisoners while in jail custody, even though he is criminal or accused in criminal case. It was the responsibility of the jail authority to save the life of the deceased after he was taken into custody, but unequivocally serious injuries caused to the deceased Sudhir Singh while in the jail premises as a result of which he died. It is, prima facie, evident that due to negligence on the part of the jail authority, such violence took place which resulted in the death of under trial prisoner within the jail premises. It is, therefore, a fit case where the petitioner, who is widow, having two minor daughters, need to be compensated. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner shall be paid compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs of which Rs. 2 lakhs already awarded by the National Human Rights Commission shall be adjusted: Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be paid compensation at Rs. 1 lakh only in this case.”

¶126

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binod Singh has further submitted that from above referred judgments, it is apparent that a person though he is under-trial prisoner and having criminal antecedent, also possess the fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is incumbent upon the State who is bound to safeguard the fundamental rights of the under-trial prisoner, as in several cases the dependent of the convict has also been awarded compensation whenever the state authority fails to provide safety to the jail inmates, which has been discussed properly in the case of U. P. Power Corporation Ltd.(supra), wherein it has been held that ' human rights' means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

¶127

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Binod Singh has further submitted that the petitioner’s fundamental right has been infringed as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the action of the state authority, as such, this Hon’ble court may consider all the aforesaid precedents and award compensation accordingly.

¶128

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has submitted that the State Government has complied the order of the NHRC, whereby considering the criminal antecedent report of the deceased, the compensation has been refused under Section 18 (a) (i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the same has already been brought on record by way of counter affidavit, as such, this Court may dismiss the writ petition.

¶129

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C.

¶130

¶131

to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has further submitted that the writ petition was filed on 15.12.2009 and the counter-affidavit has been filed on 29.11.2013 by State through Babujee Soren S/o Late Darbari Soren, Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand wherein it has been categorically stated at Paras 6, 9 and 15 that son of the petitioner had criminal antecedents and involved in various criminal cases, as such, award of compensation to such persons may be denied. Paras 6, 9 and 15 is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶132

“ 6. That it is submitted that on 20.03.2009, the son of the petitioner who was lodged in Gaghidih Jail is alleged to have opened fire on Paramjit Singh, another prisoner of jail as a result of which Paramjit Singh sustained bullet injury and succumbed to the injury. It is further alleged that in course of fleeing the petitioner entered the Nehru Ward of the jail wherein he was beaten up by the prisoners.

¶133

9 . It is submitted that as per the investigation made so far it appears that the son of the petitioner belonged to the notorious Akhilesh Singh gang and it was he who opened fire on Paramjit Singh, who died as a result of the injury so sustained. After being beaten up by the co-prisoners the son of the petitioner was taken to hospital where he succumbed to the injury. The son of the petitioner cannot be allowed premium by way of payment of compensation for having obtained illegal arms in jail and for having a prisoner. Payment of compensation, a sprayed for in the writ application may amount to giving premium for the wrong acts of the son of the petitioner.

¶134

15 . That the statement made in paragraph-9 of the writ application, under

¶135

reply, it is stated and submitted that from the kind perusal of the Counteraffidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police it shall appear that the son of the petitioner had a criminal history and he was involved in various criminal cases.”

¶136

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has further submitted that subsequently counter-affidavit has been filed on 17.06.2019 by Satyendra Chaudhary S/o Late Anirudh Chaudhary, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, wherein it has been categorically stated that actions has been taken against the concerned officials who failed to maintain and provide security to the inmates and to check and remove latches & lapses, a standard operating procedure was framed by the Home, jail and disaster Management department. Also, directions were given to all the concern officials to adopt Two-Tier checking system. Paras-7 to 18

¶137

¶138

of the counter-affidavit dated 17.06.2019 is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶139

“7 . That it is humbly stated and submitted that after enquiry it was found that there were latches and lapses on/from the part of security personnel of Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur. Accordingly, the Jail Warden, Islam Ansari, LiusTigga were suspended by Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, vide Office Order no.-16 dated 20.03.2009 and Jail Head Warden, namely, Rang NathTiwary, together with Assistant Jailor Animesh Kumar Choudhary and Jailor BholaNath Pandey was suspended vide letter no.-825 dated 02-04-2009 and letter no.651 dated 20-03-2009 respectively of Inspector General of Prison, Jharkhand, Ranchi and Departmental proceedings ere initiated against them and they were also punished as under :-

¶140

1) Shree Bholanath Pandey- Jailor- demoted to the Post of Asst. Jailor.

¶141

2) Shree Animesh Kr. Choudhary- Asstt. Jailor- withhold 04 increments with cumulative effect.

¶142

3) Rangnath Tiwary- Head Warden- withhold 3 increments.

¶143

8 . That it is humbly stated and submitted that not only the above, but the then Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur was also suspended and after the departmental proceeding adequate punishment was given, i.e. Smt. Olive Grace Kullu- withhold 3 increments with cumulative effect.

¶144

9 . That it is humbly stated and submitted that in order to check and remove the latches and lapses, necessary directions were given and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was framed by the Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Letter No.-3087 dated 06-06-2017 and letter no.-3090 dated 06-06-2017 addressed to all Deputy Commissioner\ Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police \ Superintendent of Jail of Jharkhand to be followed by the concerned authorities to ensure Security Audit of prisons, surprise checking (Raid by District Administration) etc. and all other aspects relating to the affairs of day to day Jail Management. 10 . That it is humbly stated and submitted that thereafter in the light of letter no.-2011 dated 10-08-2017 of Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Inspector General of Prison, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter no.3610, dated 18-08-2017 passed necessary directions which were given to all Deputy Commissioner\ Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police\ Superintendent of Jail of Jharkhand to adopt TWO- TIER checking system and to ensure its compliance.

¶145

11 . That it is humbly stated and submitted that it is important to mention that Chief Secretary vide its letter no.2273 dated 09-09-2017 and Superintendent of Police (Security) Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide itsletter no.4764 dated 23-10-2017 also fixed the procedure to be followed/adopted during the course of TWO- TIER Checking.

¶146

12 . That it is humbly stated and submitted that in the light of letter no.284

¶147

¶148

dated 04-02-2016 a Jail Security Committee comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Special Branch), Superintendent of Jail has been constituted /made having its meeting on regular interval to assess that whether the directions contained in aforementioned letters are being duly complied or not, and further how to improve towards the compliance of aforesaid directions contained in aforementioned letters.

¶149

13 . That it is further submitted that CCTV Surveillance has been installed in all jails including in the Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur. Further additional 146 CCTV has been installed to ensure complete surveillance of the Jail for safety and security purposes.

¶150

14 . That it is also stated that 3 nos. of jammers has been installed and are functional.

¶151

15 . That it is also stated that Handheld Metal Detector and Door Frame Metal Detector has also been installed.

¶152

16 . That it is also stated that Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP) has been deputed for outside security of prisons including watch towers.

¶153

17 . That it is also stated that Video Conferencing Systems have been installed for production and trial of cases of prisoners for minimum movement -of prisoners so that prohibited articles are not smuggled inside prisons.

¶154

18 .That it is evident from above that adequate security measures have been undertaken to ensure that no prohibited articles enter into the jail premises.”

¶155

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has further submitted that supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on 19.09.2019 by Satyendra Chaudhary S/o Late Anirudh Chaudhary, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, wherein the detailed criminal antecedents has been filed with regard to Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam and a reference has been made to the matter bearing case no.1522/34/6/0809-JCD passed by National Human Right Commission. Paras-6 to 10 supplementary counter-affidavit dated 19.09.2019 is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶156

“6 . That it is most humbly stated and submitted that vide order dated 03.09.2019 this Hon’ble Court directed to file affidavit on the point of having criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the order passed by Human Right for claim for petitioner’s compensation by the Human Right Commission. 7 . That it is most humbly stated and submitted that in this instant writ petition the applicant is mother of the deceased/ Undertrial prisoner, namely, Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam.

¶157

8 . So far as the criminal incident of the deceased/ undertrial prisoner, namely,

¶158

¶159

Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam, is concerned, he had criminal

¶160

antecedents here as under: -

¶161

Sl. No.	Case No and under Section	Court Name
1	GR-2233/08 Bistupur PS- 259/08, U/S-307, 120(B), 34 IPC & 27 Arms Act	C.J.M., Jsr.
2	GR- 1898/08	C.J.M., Jsr.
3	GR- 2442/08	C.J.M., Jsr.
4	Saket (S. Delhi)-44/08, U/S -25 Arms Act	A.C.J.M., Patiala House, Delhi
5	Gajipur (UP) PS-874/08, U/S-307 IPC & 7 CLA Act	C.J.M. Gajipur, UP
6	Gajipur (UP) PS-745/08, U/S-223, 224, 225, 120(B) IPC	C.J.M., Gajipur UP

¶162

9 .That it is most humbly stated and submitted that National Human Right Commission, New Delhi vide its letter no. NIL dated 27.02.2012 has closed the matter bearing case no.1522/34/6/08-09-JCD relating to the deceased/ undertrial prisoner namely, Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam, with a direction /observation “Since both the deceased were hardcore criminals and they used illegal means to kill each other in prison, they and they family members are not entitled for any compensation U/s 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

¶163

On the basis of above, since action has been initiated against the errant prison staff and the criminal cases have also been registered in connection with the murder of both the criminals in prison, further intervention of the Commission is not called for, the case is closed.”

¶164

10 . That it is most humbly stated and submitted that as per the compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court, the answering respondent is hereby submitting the order passed by Human Right Commission for claim for petitioner compensation by the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi vide letter no.NIL dated 27.02.2012.”

¶165

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has further submitted that another supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on 18.12.2021 by Tushar Ranjan Gupta S/o Late S. N. Sahu, A.I.G.(Prison), Jharkhand, Ranchi.Paras-13 to 16 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder: -

¶166

“ 13. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Hon'ble Human Rights Commission in the order / recommendation dated 09.02.2012 has observed which reads as follows: -

¶167

a) On the basis Magisterial Enquiry Report, it was found that the Jailor, Assistant Jailor and Warder on duty were placed under

¶168

¶169

suspension and departmental action has been initiated against them.

¶170

b) Since both the deceased were hardcore criminals and they used illegal means to kill each other in prison, they and their family members are not entitled for any compensation under section 18 (a) (i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

¶171

c) On the basis of above, since action has been initiated against the arrant prison staff and the criminal cases have also been registered in connection with the murder of both the criminals in prison, further intervention of the Commission is not called for, the cases is closed.

¶172

14. That j it is humbly stated and submitted that the Hon’ble National Human Rights Commission has held in its Order/recommendation dated 09.02.2012 that the family members of the deceased are not entitled for any compensation under section 18 (a) (i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and further intervention of the Hon’ ble Commission was not called for as such the case was closed.

¶173

15. That it is humbly stated and submitted that since the Hon’ble Commission has observed that the family members of the deceased persons are not entitled for any compensation 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

¶174

16. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Hon'ble National Human Rights Commission has held in its recommendation/order that the deceased persons were hardcore criminals as such has not found a fit case for award of any compensation tot eh kith and kin of the deceased.”

¶175

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Ms. Nitika Agrawal, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has further submitted that this court may consider the aspects which has been brought on record by the way of counter affidavits that the son of the petitioner was a hardcore criminal and was involved in various criminal activities, as such, this court may dismiss the instant petition.

¶176

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavits filed by the State, the question which has been cropped up before this court is that “whether a under-trial prisoner is entitle for the compensation or not?”

¶177

Admittedly, the son of the petitioner had a criminal antecedent and as under-trial prisoner at Ghaghidih Jail, Jamshedpur. He was killed because of the negligence, as State authority failed to provide protection as

¶178

¶179

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as he was mercilessly killed while he was in the custody of the State since 20.03.2009.When the matter went before the National Human Right Commission(NHRC),the Commission vide order dated 27.02.2012 has denied the compensation to the kin of the deceased u/s 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act,1993, on the ground that the deceased had criminal antecedent.

¶180

It would be appropriate to re-produce Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which read as follows:-

¶181

18. Steps during and after inquiry.—The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:—

¶182

(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority—

¶183

(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

¶184

(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;

¶185

(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit;

¶186

(b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary;

¶187

(c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

¶188

(d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative;

¶189

(e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission;

¶190

(f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and

¶191

¶192

the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.]

¶193

From the bare reading of aforesaid section, it appears to this court that Section 18 vests wide powers in the Commission. Under clause (a), it is empowered to recommend the payment of compensation or damages to the concerned government or authority where the enquiry has disclosed the commission of a violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of a violation of human rights or abetment thereof. The Commission is entitled to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary. The Commission under clause (c) of Section 18 can recommend to the concerned government or authority at any stage of the enquiry to grant interim relief to the victim or the members of his family. Under clause (e), the Commission has to send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority which shall, within a period of one month or such further time as may be allowed, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Commission.

¶194

The National Human Rights Commission vide order dated 27.02.2012 in case No.—1522/34/6/08-09-JCD dated 09.02.2012 has held that jail administration has failed to discharge its duties resulting into death of the under-Trial prison i.e., Pramod Kumar Singh@ Gautam (deceased herein) and also, that State of Jharkhand has also failed to protect the lives of under- trial prisoners, which is the case of violation of Human rights.

¶195

This court is of opinion that once the National Human Rights Commission has given its finding after due inquiry, that there is a violation of Human rights due to latches of the state machinery resulting into the death of the under-Trial prisoner, then it is incumbent upon the commission to direct for the award of the compensation as enumerated under section 18(a)(i) of the Protection of the Human Rights Acts,1993. Also, the Division Bench of the of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others (supra) has held that enactment of the protection of Human Rights Act,1933 is an intrinsic part of the

¶196

¶197

enforcement of the fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The commission has to pass an order of compensation to the dependent of victim even if he is a prisoner, may be under trial or convict, if their fundamental rights have been violated as granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶198

In the view of aforesaid propositions, the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission vide order dated 27.02.2012, denying compensation to the petitioner is not tenable at this juncture and negated by this court.

¶199

The Apex Court in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons case reported in (2017) 10 SCC 658 at has reiterated the cases where compensation has been awarded to the kin of the deceased convict, prisoner, under-trial prisoner etc.The Apex Court has alsoemphasised the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution and the need of reforms in the condition of prisoners and prison.Paras- 41 to 59 of the judgment is profitably quoted hereunder: -

¶200

Compensation for unnatural deaths

¶201

41. The issue of compensation for unnatural deaths in custody is no longer res integra.

¶202

42. One of the earliest cases where this Court granted compensation in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798] . That case was not one of a custodial death but was a case of illegal detention even after acquittal in a full dress trial. This Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the illegal detention and it rejected the stale and sterile objection of the State Government that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages. This Court took the view that the refusal to pass an order of compensation would be doing mere lip service to the fundamental right of liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution which the State Government had so grossly violated. This Court observed that: (SCC p. 148, para 10)

¶203

“10. … if civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others, too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy.”

¶204

43. A little later, this Court dealt with Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India [Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82 : 1984 SCC -24-

¶205

(Cri) 407] which concerned itself with the disappearance of some persons while in custody. This Court was convinced that enabling the respondents to trace or locate the two missing persons at such a late stage would be to shut its eyes to reality and to pursue a mirage. It appeared to this Court that the two

¶206

¶207

missing persons had actually met a tragic end in an encounter amounting to an unnatural death. This Court ordered the registration of an offence and an investigation and also directed payment of compensation to the next of kin.

¶208

44. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [NilabatiBehera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527] was a case where a person who was taken into police custody for investigation of a theft, was found dead near a railway track the next day. On the basis of injuries and handcuffs on his wrists, this Court concluded that it was a custodial death and compensation was awarded under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was held that a public law remedy was certainly available to claim compensation for the contravention of human rights and fundamental rights which are protected as a guarantee by our Constitution. A reference was also made to Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which reads:

¶209

“ 9. (5) Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”

¶210

45. An unnatural death in judicial custody where one person was killed by a co-prisoner was the subject-matter of discussion in KewalPati v. State of U.P. [KewalPati v. State of U.P., (1995) 3 SCC 600 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 556] . It was held that as a consequence of imprisonment, a prisoner does not cease to have constitutional rights, except to the extent he or she has been deprived of them in accordance with law. Therefore, even a prisoner is entitled to protection and if he is killed while in prison, it results in a deprivation of his life contrary to the law, for which the next of kin are entitled to compensation.

¶211

46. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92] this Court recognised that at the time of ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 in 1979, the Government of India made a specific reservation to the effect that the Indian legal system does not recognise a right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or detention and only became a party to the covenant, subject to this reservation. It was noted, however, that the reservation has lost its relevance in view of the law laid down by this Court in several cases wherein compensation has been awarded for the infringement of a fundamental right of a citizen. It was also noted that while there is no express provision in the Constitution for grant of compensation, this right has been judicially evolved in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life. This Court summed up the law in the following words: (SCC p. 443, para 54)

¶212

“54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The

¶213

¶214

objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty-bound to do. The award of compensation in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no straitjacket formula can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.”

¶215

(emphasis in original) 47. Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. [Ajab Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 521 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 718] , Murti Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Murti Devi v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1998) 9 SCC 604 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1330] and more recently Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 290 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 205] illustrate that custodial death is a clear violation of the prisoner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and relief could be moulded by granting compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

¶216

48. In addition to the above decisions and several others rendered by this Court, almost every High Court in the country has, at one time or another, also granted compensation for the unnatural death of a person in custody, whether an undertrial or a convict. A few such illustrations may be noted:

¶217

(a) Nina Rajan Pillai v. Union of India [Nina Rajan Pillai v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2252 : (2011) 180 DLT 104]

¶218

48.1. The husband of the petitioner died in judicial custody due to inadequate medical treatment given by the jail authorities. The Lt. Governor of Delhi even appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Leila Seth, a former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to inquire into the circumstances that led to the death of the petitioner's husband. The Delhi High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

¶219

(b) Kewalbai v. State of Maharashtra [Kewalbai v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC OnLineBom773 : (2013) 3 Bom CR (Cri) 601]

¶220

48.2. The victim was shot dead by a constable while in custody. The Bombay High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody. (c) Bheduki Buragohain v. State of Assam [Bheduki Buragohain v. State of Assam, 2013 SCC OnLineGau429 : (2013) 6 Gau LR 517].

¶221

48.3. The undertrial victim died in judicial custody under suspicious circumstances. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and ante-mortem injuries by blunt

¶222

¶223

weapons. The Gauhati High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

¶224

(d) MadhubenAdesara v. State of Gujarat [MadhubenAdesara v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLineGuj 1956]

¶225

48.4. The deceased was brutally tortured by police officers while in custody and succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The post-mortem report revealed that the victim had multiple injury marks which were ante-mortem in nature. The Gujarat High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.

¶226

(e) Banalata Dash v. State of Orissa [Banalata Dash v. State of Orissa, AIR 2012 Ori 97]

¶227

48.5. The deceased was found hanging from a tree with his hands behind his back, tied at the wrist with a towel. Since the victim was in the custody of the prison authorities, compensation was awarded by the Orissa High Court for the unnatural death in custody.

¶228

(f) Amandeep v. State of Punjab [Amandeep v. State of Punjab, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19844 : (2013) 169 PLR 191]

¶229

48.6. The deceased was assaulted by a co-prisoner and succumbed to injuries in the hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the deceased. (g) Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State [Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1249 : (2008) 5 MLJ 822]

¶230

48.7. The victim was murdered by his enemies while in prison. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Madras High Court awarded compensation to his next of kin.

¶231

(h) Sabu E.K. v. State of Kerala [Sabu E.K. v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 22210 : (2016) 4 KLJ 105]

¶232

48.8. The victim was tortured in a police station and succumbed to his injuries. In view of the unnatural death in custody the Kerala High Court awarded interim compensation to the next of kin of the deceased until the criminal trial against the police officers concerned was concluded.

¶233

(i) RavindraNathAwasthi v. State of U.P. [RavindraNathAwasthi v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 337 : (2009) 2 AWC 2090]

¶234

48.9. The victim was an advocate held guilty of contempt of court. While he was undergoing his sentence, he was severely beaten up by the prison authorities and succumbed to his injuries in hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Allahabad High Court directed payment of compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

¶235

(j) Madina v. State of Rajasthan [Madina v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 203 : 2000 Cri LJ 4484]

¶236

48.10. The victim died in police custody on account of the use of third degree methods. Due to the unnatural death in custody, compensation was awarded by the Rajasthan High Court to the next of kin of the deceased. (k) Dukhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh [Dukhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 3 MPHT 81]

¶237

¶238

48.11. The deceased was taken from the police station in order to recover stolen articles alleged to have been hidden by him at a secret place. He was brought to a pond and compelled to dive into the pond. At that time he was handcuffed and in chains. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the pond. In view of the unnatural death, while the deceased was in the custody of police officers, the Chhattisgarh High Court awarded compensation.

¶239

(l) Santosh Kumari v. State of H.P. [Santosh Kumari v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 45 : 2008 ACJ 1684]

¶240

48.12. The victim died while he was in police custody and it was found that he had injuries on his head, shoulders, eyes, knees and private parts. He died in hospital as he was not given medical assistance in time. In view of the unnatural death while in custody, the Himachal Pradesh High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

¶241

(m) State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmad Dar [State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmad Dar, 2015 SCC OnLine J&K 160].

¶242

48.13. The victim died due to cardiopulmonary arrest while detained in the District Jail under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. It was held that death was due to carelessness, non-seriousness and negligence in not extending medical treatment. In view of the unnatural death in custody, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court awarded the compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.

¶243

(n) Meena Singh v. State of Bihar [Meena Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC OnLineJhar 74 : 2001 Cri LJ 3573]

¶244

48.14. The victim was attacked and killed by co-prisoners by the use of chhura, iron rods and belts, etc. The next of kin of the deceased were awarded compensation by the Patna High Court for the unnatural death of the victim in custody.

¶245

(o) Lawyers for Justice v. State of M.P. [Lawyers for Justice v. State of M.P., 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7488 : AIR 2015 MP 212]

¶246

48.15. The victim was facing trial for offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. While he was undergoing treatment in a hospital he was shot dead by an unknown person. In view of the unnatural death while in custody, the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the victim.

¶247

49. There are several such cases—documented and undocumented—all over the country but in spite of repeated decisions delivered by this Court and perhaps every High Court there seems to be no let up in custodial deaths. This is not a sad but a tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in custody. The time to remedy the situation is long past and yet, there seems to be no will and therefore no solution in sight.

¶248

The need to reform

¶249

50. The factual material referred to above is an indication that steps are being taken in some form or the other by the Central Government and hopefully by the State Governments to ameliorate the conditions of prisoners across the country and thereby reduce the number of unnatural deaths. These

¶250

¶251

steps give an impression that there is nothing to be seriously worried about. However, the statistics provided by NCRB reflect the ground reality and dispel that impression. It is time for the State to go beyond projections through circulars and advisories and actually come to grips with reality as it exists in a very large number of prisons. What is practised in our prisons is the theory of retribution and deterrence and the ground situation emphasises this, while our criminal justice system believes in reformation and rehabilitation and that is why handcuffing and solitary confinement are prohibited. It is this “rejection” of the philosophy of our criminal justice system that leads to violence in prisons and eventually unnatural deaths.

¶252

51. This Court has time and again emphasised the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to a life of dignity. There must be a genuine desire to ensure that the guarantee to a life of dignity is provided to the extent possible even in prisons, otherwise Article 21 of the Constitution will remain a dead letter. It must be appreciated by the State that the common person does not violate the law for no reason at all. It is the circumstances that lead to a situation where there is a violation of law. On many occasions, such a violation may be of a trivial nature or may be a one-time aberration and, in such circumstances, the offender has to be treated with some degree of humanity. At least in such cases, retribution and deterrence cannot be an answer to the offence and the offender. Unless the State changes this mindset and takes steps to give meaning to life and liberty of every prisoner, prison reforms can never be effective or long lasting.

¶253

52. The issue of unnatural deaths in prisons was debated and discussed before us in great detail by the learned Amicus Curiae, the learned Attorney General and learned counsel for the National Forum. All of them have painstakingly taken us through a plethora of documents but, as mentioned above, the existence of volumes of documents relating to unnatural deaths in prisons does not necessarily resolve the problem that we are confronted with and which was brought to our notice by Chief Justice Lahoti.

¶254

53. However, we do hope that the highlighting of this issue will bring about awareness in the mind and heart of the powers that be and consequential reforms in prisons which may ultimately reduce, if not eliminate, the number of unnatural deaths in prisons and also improve the conditions of prisoners all over the country.

¶255

54. The case law indicates that over the last several decades this Court and almost every High Court has relied on Article 21 of the Constitution and thought it appropriate to compensate the next of kin for an unnatural custodial death. The constitutional courts can go on delivering judgment after judgment on this issue and award compensation, but unless the State realises that custodial death is itself a crime and monetary compensation is not necessarily the only appropriate relief that can be granted to the next of kin of the deceased, such unnatural deaths will continue unabated. Therefore, what is needed is a review of all prisons with a humanitarian nuance.

¶256

55. Over the last several years, there have been discussions on the rights of victims and one of the rights of a victim of crime is to obtain compensation. Schemes for victim compensation have been framed by almost every State and

¶257

¶258

that is a wholesome development. But it is important for the Central Government and the State Governments to realise that persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also victims—sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy or both. There is no reason at all to exclude their next of kin from receiving compensation only because the victim of an unnatural death is a criminal. Human rights are not dependent on the status of a person but are universal in nature. Once the issue is looked at from this perspective, it will be appreciated that merely because a person is accused of a crime or is the perpetrator of a crime and in prison custody, that person could nevertheless be a victim of an unnatural death. Hence, the need to compensate the next of kin.

¶259

56. One of the issues not touched upon by the learned Amicus Curiae or by the National Forum relates to the custodial death of children in child care institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. There does not appear to be any study carried out in this regard and it is rather unfortunate that the Central Government and the State Governments are oblivious to the possibility of death of children in custody in child care institutions. This is distressing. The pain and anguish of the next of kin of children who pass away in custody is not less, but more than the pain and anguish of the next of kin of any prisoner who suffers an unnatural death in custody. It seems that apart from being “voiceless”, such children are also dispensable.

¶260

57. There is no documentation on the number of unnatural deaths (if any) of children in child care institutions and this should now be on the agenda of the Central Government and the State Governments (particularly the Department concerned with the welfare of children) with far greater concern than has been shown so far. The unnatural death of any child in need of care and protection or in conflict with law and in a child care institution needs attention since it is these voiceless children who need to be heard. It is time that unnatural deaths of children in child care institutions are seriously looked into by all concerned if we are to provide the children of our country with a better future.

¶261

58. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances before us, the suggestions put forward by the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel appearing for the National Forum deserve acceptance and, therefore, we issue the following directions:

¶262

58.1. The Secretary General of this Court will transmit a copy of this decision to the Registrar General of every High Court within one week with a request to the Registrar General to place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to register a suomotu public interest petition with a view to identifying the next of kin of the prisoners who have admittedly died an unnatural death as revealed by NCRB during the period between 2012 and 2015 and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation, unless adequate compensation has already been awarded.

¶263

¶264

58.2. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs will ensure circulation within one month and in any event by 31-10-2017 of (i) the Model Prison Manual, (ii) the monograph prepared by NHRC entitled “Suicide in Prison — Prevention Strategy and Implication from Human Rights and Legal Points of View”, (iii) the communications sent by NHRC referred to above, (iv) the compendium of advisories issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the State Governments, (v) the Nelson Mandela Rules, and (vi) the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Director General or Inspector General of Police (as the case may be) in charge of prisons in every State and Union Territory. All efforts should be made, as suggested by NHRC and others, to reduce and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in prisons and to document each and every death in prisons—both natural and unnatural.

¶265

58.3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs will direct NCRB to explain and clarify the distinction between unnatural and natural deaths in prisons as indicated on the website of NCRB and in its annual reports and also explain the sub-categorisation “others” within the category of unnatural deaths. NCRB should also be required to sub-categorise natural deaths. The sub-categorisation and clarification should be complied with by 31-10-2017.

¶266

58.4. The State Governments should, in conjunction with the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the National and State Police Academy and the Bureau of Police Research and Development conduct training and sensitisation programmes for senior police officials of all prisons on their functions, duties and responsibilities as also the rights and duties of prisoners. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the MemberSecretary of each SLSA to follow up and ensure compliance.

¶267

58.5. The necessity of having counsellors and support persons in prisons cannot be over-emphasised. Their services can be utilised to counsel and advise prisoners who might be facing some crisis situation or might have some violent or suicidal tendencies. The State Governments are directed to appoint counsellors and support persons for counselling prisoners, particularly first- time offenders. In this regard, the services of recognised NGOs can be taken and encouraged.

¶268

58.6. While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner should be encouraged, it would be worthwhile to consider extending the time or frequency of meetings and also explore the possibility of using phones and videoconferencing for communications not only between a prisoner and family members of that prisoner, but also between a prisoner and the lawyer, whether appointed through the State Legal Services Authority or otherwise.

¶269

58.7. The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) should urgently conduct a study on the lines conducted by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority in Bihar and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in Rajasthan in respect of the overall conditions in prisons in the State and the facilities available. The study should also include a performance audit of the prisons, as has been done by CAG. SLSAs should also assess the effect and impact of various schemes framed by N ALSA relating to prisoners. We request the Chief Justice of every

¶270

¶271

High Court, in the capacity of Patron-in-Chief of the State Legal Services Authority, to take up this initiative and, if necessary, set up a committee headed preferably by the Executive Chairperson of the State Legal Services Authority to implement the directions given above.

¶272

58.8. Providing medical assistance and facilities to inmates in prisons needs no reaffirmation. The right to health is undoubtedly a human right and all State Governments should concentrate on making this a reality for all, including prisoners. The experiences in Karnataka, West Bengal and Delhi to the effect that medical facilities in prisons do not meet minimum standards of care is an indication that the human right to health is not given adequate importance in prisons and that may also be one of the causes of unnatural deaths in prisons. The State Governments are directed to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever necessary.

¶273

58.9. The constitution of a Board of Visitors which includes non-official visitors is of considerable importance so that eminent members of society can participate in initiating reforms in prisons and in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Merely changing the nomenclature of prisons to “Correction Homes” will not resolve the problem. Some proactive steps are required to be taken by eminent members of society who should be included in the Board of Visitors. The State Governments are directed to constitute an appropriate Board of Visitors in terms of Chapter XXIX of the Model Prison Manual indicating their duties and responsibilities. This exercise should be completed by 30-11-2017.

¶274

58.10. The suggestion given by the learned Amicus Curiae of encouraging the establishment of “open jails” or “open prisons” is certainly worth considering. It was brought to our notice that the experiment in Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) and the semi-open prison in Delhi are extremely successful and need to be carefully studied. Perhaps there might be equally successful experiments carried out in other States as well and, if so, they require to be documented, studied and emulated.

¶275

58.11. The Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Government of India which is concerned with the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed to discuss with the officers concerned of the State Governments and formulate procedures for tabulating the number of children (if any) who suffer an unnatural death in child care institutions where they are kept in custody either because they are in conflict with law or because they need care and protection. Necessary steps should be taken in this regard by 31-12-2017.

¶276

59. We expect the above directions to be faithfully implemented by the Union of India and the State Governments. In the event of any difficulty in the implementation of the above directions, the Bench hearing the suomotu public interest litigation in the High Court in terms of our first direction is at liberty to consider those difficulties and pass necessary orders and directions.

¶277

Also, Section -55 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure also lay down the provision for the Health and safety of the arrested person, which is profitably quoted hereunder –

¶278

¶279

55-A. Health and safety of arrested person .—It shall be the duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.

¶280

In view of the above proposition and Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons case (supra), this court is of opinion that it is incumbent upon the state machinery to safeguard the right to life to the citizen including prisoners as enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of Indian. A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional rights except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law. Therefore, both the victims, who were in custody were entitled to protection under law, as the State has failed to provide them, the dependents of both are entitled to be compensated. If the state failed to safeguard the fundamental right under Article 21 of the prisoners and deny appropriate relief and monetary compensation to the kin/family, on the death of under-trials prisoners and convicts under state custody, the Hon’ble Apex court and almost every Hon’ble High Court time and again relied on Article 21 of the Constitution and thought it appropriate to compensate the next of kin/family of the deceased under-trial prisoners, prisoners and convicts.

¶281

Accordingly, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in view of the above propositions considers that compensation is to be awarded to both of the under-trial prisoners namely Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh as well as other prisoner Pramjit Singh, as it is not in dispute that both were in under the State custody. Thus, this Court directs the State of Jharkhand to pay the dependent/family of both the victims namely Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh and Pramjit Singh to pay Rs.5,00,000/- each within a period of 60 days from today. Though, Pramjit Singh is not the petitioner before this Court, but this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to grant such relief to the dependent/family of the deceased, who was also prisoner and the state has failed to safeguard his life which is in violation of the constitutional rights granted to prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶282

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶283

This Court also directs the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to constitute a committee with regard to formulating a model

¶284

¶285

for payment of compensation for different types of violation of fundamental rights in the State of Jharkhand either to the under trial prisoner or to the convicts or for the mob lynching in pursuant to the direction passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons case (supra) and that must be completed within a period of 90 days from today without any further extension, as such direction has already been passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in the year 2017 and nothing has been done by the state in pursuant to the order passed by the Apex court, till the date.

¶286

The Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to file an affidavit in compliance of the aforesaid direction and in compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons case (supra). The State Govt. shall consider the same in accordance with the model for compensation formulated in view of direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, if more money is to be paid for such types of death as happened with Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh and Parmjit Singh victims of this case, the same shall be paid to their dependents in accordance with law.

¶287

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand through 'FAX'.

¶288

Put up this case for follow up in the monthly list of July, 2022.

¶289

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶290

Jay/

Manti Devi Manti Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manti Devi Manti Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdip Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Gurdip Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

M/S.Sarveshwari Enterprises Vs Bihar State Financial Corporat

Jeetendra Kumar Pandey Vs Jharkhand Public Service Commi

Akhileshwar Prasad Srivastav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.