ORDER
S.A. Kader, J.
1. This is a public interest litigation instituted by the two Secretaries of the Indian Association of Lawyers (Tamil Nadu Chapter) and two students of the B.L.Class, who are interested in the welfare of the community and participants in the Free Legal Aid and Advice Centre seeking redress for the trials and tribulations undergone by the minority Sikh community of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu and a few others in the wake of assassination of Srimathi Indira Gandhi on 31-10-1984.
2. The brief facts set out in the affidavit in support of this petition are these: As an aftermath of the unfortunate and dastardly assassination of Srimathi Indira Gandhi there were unfortunate incidents in the country affecting the Sikh community in particular and a series of incidents took place at Coimbatore. Miss. Geetha Ramaseshan, an Advocate of this Bar and one of the Joint Secretaries of the Indian Association of Lawyers (Tamil Nadu Chapter) visited Coimbatore on the 15th and 16th of November, 1984, made an on-the-spot inspection and enquiry and gave a report to the Indian Association of Lawyers (Tamil Nadu Chapter), which is annexed to this petition. The report gives a graphic description of the extent of the injuries inflicted on the members of the Sikh community in Coimbatore with reference to their properties and seriously affecting their business and avocation besides causing damage to their place of worship. The members of the Sikh community in particular have suffered privations of a horrendous character for no fault of theirs. These incidents at Coimbatore have also taken a toll of the properties of some members belonging to other communities as well. There have been violations of several essential provisions of the Constitution, which envisages a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and assures to its citizens justice, social, economic and political. These incidents violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(e) and (g) and 21 of the Constitution. They are deprived of the Constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India According to the petitioners, it is the bounden duty of the State in the interests of secularism to come to the speedy aid of the affected persons and rehabilitate them in a substantial measure. Under Article 38 of the Constitution, the State is bound to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the National Life. This is the only ultimate guarantee of maintenance of secularism which is the sheet-anchor for the protection and preservation of the unity and integrity of the country. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order and direction in the nature of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution appointing a panel of Commissioners consisting of a senior District Judge and competent technical personnel to report on the incidents which took place on 31-10-1984 and on the subsequent dates and submit concrete proposals for the rehabilitation of the members of the Sikh community and others affected thereby.
3. The Collector of Coimbatore under instructions from the State Government has conducted an enquiry into the loss and damage suffered by the individuals in these violent incidents at Coimbatore and submitted a report dated 11-2-1985. The learned Government Pleader has produced this report before me. It contains a tabular statement containing the location of the building, the name of the owner of the building, community to which he belongs, the name of the occupier, his community, the estimated value of damages to the building as assessed by the Public Works Department, the particulars of damages as assessed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the loss as estimated by the Police, loss as per the report of the Fire Officer, the loss as claimed by the affected parties and finally his remarks wherein he has fixed the compensation payable to the individuals after taking into account the insurance amounts paid to them. There are 34 cases out of which in one case (item 25) there was no damage to the building but only to the account books and no compensation was recommended by the Collector. In another case (item 34) no relief was recommended by the Collector since the claimant has got compensation from the Insurance Company in full. In respect of the other 32 cases he has made clear recommendations for payment of compensation in each individual case either for the loss of goods or for damages to the building. The total amount of compensation as recommended by the Collector comes to Rs. 33,19,033.
4. The first respondent-Union of India has not filed any counter but the learned senior counsel for the Union, Mr. R. Shanmugham, has placed before me the communication issued by the Government of the Union of India to the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 14-3-1985 regarding the payment of compensation to the victims of the riots. The Government of India has also sent a reply dated 1-3-1985 to the second petitioner's letter informing him that the Government of Tamil Nadu has been addressed in the matter to provide immediate suitable relief to the riot victims. Since public order is a State subject, the Government of India could not be expected to do more in the matter. However, the interest taken by the Government of India in providing relief and rehabilitation to the victims is commendable.
5. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Law and Order, has filed a counter-affidavit on 26-2-1988. It is seen therefrom that the news of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31-10-1984 spread in Coimbatore Town around 11-15 A.M. though there was no communication through the radio or the Press about the incident at that time. The bus transport got disrupted and businessmen closed their shutters. The Collector of Coimbatore immediately convened a meeting with the Superintendent of Police, District Revenue Officer, Sub-Collector and others and gave proper instructions to maintain law and order and arranged for adequate police protection. Special jeeps procured from various departments were allotted to the police. There was no violence till the evening. The news of the assassination was announced over the radio in the afternoon. On hearing this inesteemable loss people started gathering throughout in large numbers and the crowd swelled. Anticipating attack on the Sikh community, they were taken from their residences through a special party and accommodated in the Central Prison Auditorium till normalcy was restored. Anti-social elements indulged in violent activities and they were arrested only on the night of 31-10-1984. Police bandobust arrangements were made in vulnerable points and road blockades were removed. There was an all-party meeting on 1-11-1984. Mobile patrolling was ordered. Anti-social elements numbering about 438 were arrested and stolen properties worth Rs. 41/2 lakhs were recovered. Total normalcy returned to the city only on 4-11-1984. The attack on Sikhs and damage to their properties was not a preplanned one but was sudden outburst of emotion and resentment. Hooligans who were in the midst of the community utilised the mourning situation and caused damages to the properties of a particular community. All possible steps were taken and it is because of the timely action major damages were averted and there was no loss of life. The damages caused to the buildings and loss suffered by the individuals have been assessed through the Public Works Department, Police, Fire Officer and Sub-Collector, Coimbatore, but, no question of payment of compensation by the Government arises. The Government have laid down certain formulae for helping victims and have passed G.O.Ms.No. 913 Public (Law and Order) dated 29th April, 1986 granting exgratia assistance and relief from the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund. There is, therefore, no need for the appointment of a panel of Commissioners as claimed in the petition. This respondent has taken prompt and possible steps for rehabilitation of the affected members. There is, therefore, no merit in this application.
6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the first petitioner, Mr. Gandhi, advocate. It is averred that taking advantage of the emotional stress all antisocial elements indulged in rampage and depradation endangering human life and livelihood for no fault of theirs and in this explosive situation the victims belonging to the Sikh community were in a socially disadvantageous position and were unable to take action on their own. The State is under a Constitutional duty to protect the life and livelihood of the citizens and it is one of the main functions of the State falling within its exclusive domain. There was a total failure by the State to perform its mandatory duty which would amount to culpable inaction. The contention of the second respondent are in the nature of an excuse, which cannot be pleaded by a State which has a bounden duty to protect its citizens. The Collector has in his report made certain recommendations for payment of compensation. The contention of the second respondent, therefore, that no compensation can be granted to the affected people is untenable. There has been deprivation of fundamental rights and the State is under a Constitutional and legal duty to compensate the victims.
7. The 31st of October, 1984, is ablack day in the annals of this country. That day witnessed the second great tragedy that befell our Nation since Independence, the first being the brutal assassination of the Father of the Nation on the 30th of January, 1948. That great apostle of truth and advocate of Ahimsa, who did so much to impress on his contemporaries the futility of violence as a means of solving contentious issues has himself, by an irony of fate, fallen a victim to violence. The assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, our dynamic Prime Minister, the idol of millions, on 31st October, 1984 in the lawns of her official residence by her own body-guards, who belonged to the Sikh community, sent a shock-wave throughout the country, nay, throughout the world. The treacherous bullets of the assassins ripped through her body and silenced her for ever plunging the nation into a deep agonizing gloom. It needed no political sagacity for mischief by anti-social elements taking advantage of the situation and indulging in acts of murder, arson and looting. Coimbatore is an important industrial and commercial centre in the south with a sparse Sikh population of 39 families of businessmen. It is seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent-the State of Tamil Nadu that the news of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi spread in the town of Coimbatore at about 11-15 A.M., and the Collector of Coimbatore immediately went into a conference with high police and Revenue officials and put the force of the law and order on the alert. The members of the Sikh community, who stood in danger of annihilation, were evacuated from their residences and taken to a sanctuary inside the Central Jail where they were kept for nearly four or five days. Unfortunately the law enforcing authorities failed to give protection to the properties, residential and non-residential, stock-in trade house-hold articles of these members of the Sikh community. As a result, the unruly hooligans took the situation under their control, ransacked these buildings, looted the valuables and set fire thereto. Their motor vehicles have also been consigned to the fire. In this process of destruction the properties of some members of the other communities in the vicinity shared the same dismal fate. The Collector of Coimbatore in his report referred to above has recommended payment of compensation In the sum of Rs. 33,19,033 in 32 cases and in view of this report Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel for the petitioners did not press for the appointment of a commission and urged that the Government of Tamil Nadu may be directed to pay compensation as per the Collector's report.
8. The scope and ambit of public interest litigations, the rights of the citizens and the duties of the State under the Constitution have been the subject matter of a series of recent enlightened judgments of the Supreme Court. The learned Judges have pointed out that it is not only the right but also the duty of the Court, not only to enforce fundamental rights but also toward compensation against the State for violation of those rights. In other words, 'the power of the Court is not only injunctive in ambit, that is preventing the infringement of a fundamental right but it is also remedial in scope and provides the relief against the breach of the fundamental right already committed'. I shall now refer to some of the classic decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect.
9. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib and Ors. : (1981)ILLJ103SC at pages 90 and 91., Bhagwati, J., as he then was, observed:
Where constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights are at stake, functional realism and not facial cosmetics must be the diagnostic tool, for constitutional law must seek the substance and not the form.
X X X XIt must be remembered that the Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantes given to the people of India and are not merely paper hopes or fleeting promises and so long as they should not be allowed to be emasculated in their application by a narrow and constricted judicial interpretation. The courts should be anxious to enlarge the scope and width of the Fundamental Rights by bringing within their sweep every authority which is an instrumentality or agency of the Government or through the corporate personality of which the Government is acting, so as to subject the Government in all its myriad activities, whether through natural persons or through corporate entities, to the basic obligation of the Fundamental Rights.
10. In the Judges' Transfer Case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 S.C.C. (supp) 211:
There may be cases where the State or a public authority may act in violation of a constitutional or statutory obligation or fail to carry out such obligation, resulting in injury to public interest or what may conveniently be termed as public injury as distinguished from private injury.
X X X XThe view has, therefore, been taken by the courts in many decisions that whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busy body or a meddle some interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. There can be no doubt that the risk of legal action against the State or a public authority by any citizen will induce the State or such public authority to act with greater responsibility and care thereby improving the administration of justice.
X X X XThis broadening of the rule of locus standi has been largely responsible for the development of public law, because it is only the availability of judicial remedy for enforcement which invests law with meaning and purpose or else the law would remain merely a paper parchment, a tearing illusion and a promise of unreality. It is only by liberalising the rule of locus standi that it is possible to effectively police the corridors of power and prevent violation of law.
X X X XIf public duties are to be enforced and social collective 'diffused' rights and interests are to be protected, we have to utilise the initiative and seal of public-minded persons and organisations by allowing them to move the court and act for a general or group interest, even though they may not be directly injured in their own rights. It is for this reason that in public interest litigation - litigation undertaken for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests or vindicating public interest, any citizen who is acting bonafide and who has sufficient interest has to be accorded standing.
11. In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India : (1982)IILLJ454SC which was a public interest litigation filed in order to ensure observance of the provisions of various labour laws in relation to workmen employed in the construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games, the Supreme Court observed (vide pages 1476, 1477 and 1478).
We wish to point out with all the emphasis at out command that public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. Public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large number of people who are poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unre-dressed. That would be destructive of the Rule of Law which forms one of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of Government. The Rule of Law does not mean that the protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by the vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and the Rule of Law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality.
X X X XPublic interest litigation, as we conceive it, is essentially a co-operative or collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them. The State or public authority against whom public interest litigation is brought should be as much interested in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as legal, to those who are in a socially and economically disadvantaged position, as the petitioner who brings the public interested before the court. The State or public authority which is arrayed as a respondent in public interest litigation should, in fact, welcome it as it would give it an opportunity to right a wrong or to redress an injustice done to the poor and weaker sections of the community whose welfare is and must be the prime concern of the State or the public authority.
12. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar : 1983CriLJ1644 was a case where the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Session, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on June 3, 1968 but he was released from the jail on 16th October, 1982, that is to say, more than 14 years after he was acquitted. While releasing the petitioner, the Supreme Court pointed out:
Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative solerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. 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. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights'(Vide page 1089).
Taking into consideration the great harm done to the petitioner the Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 30,000 in addition to the sum of Rs. 5,000 already paid by it. The learned Judges also pointed out that this order would not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials.
13. Bhandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India : [1984]2SCR67 was a public interest litigation highlighting the system of bonded labour that has been prevalent in the mine in Bihar. Bhagawati, J., as he then was, speaking observed (vide page 811):
We have on more occasions than one said that public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economics justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the down-trodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker sections their rights and entitlements.X X X X
The Supreme Court had also occasion in this case to point out the powers of the High Court in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution. At page 817 the Supreme Court said:
We may point out that what we have said above in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Article 32 must apply equally in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226, for the latter jurisdiction is also a new constitutional jurisdiction and it is conferred in the same wide terms as the jurisdiction under Article 32 and the same powers can and must therefore he exercised by the High Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. In fact, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is much wider, because the High Courts are required to exercise this jurisdiction not only for enforcement of a fundamental right but also for enforcement of any legal right and there are many rights conferred on the poor and the dis-advantaged which are the creation of statute and they need to be enforced as urgently and vigorously as fundamental rights.
14. In Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1026, a writ of habeas corpus was filed to produce individuals by name C. Daniel and C. Paul, who were under custody by the Army authorities. The authorities failed to produce them and the C.B.I. made a report that their efforts to locate these two persons yielded no results. The Supreme Court held:.Keeping in view the torture, the agony and the mental oppression through which Mrs. C. Thingkhuila, wife of Shri C. Daniel and Mrs. C. Venagmla, wife of Shri C. Paul had to pass and they being the proper applicants, the formal application being by Sebastian M. Hongray, we direct that as a measure of exemplary costs as is permissible in such cases, respondents Nos. l and 2 shall pay Rs. 1 lac to each of the aforementioned two women within a period of four weeks from today.
15. Bhin Singh, M.LA v. State of Jammu and Kashmir : 1986CriLJ192 is another case where the petitioner, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was arrested while on route to the seat of Assembly and consequently the member was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the Assembly Session. Pointing out that if the personal liberty of the Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this fashion, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals, and that the Police Officers who are the custodians of law and order should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness and that Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties and that their duty is to protect and not to abduct, the Supreme Court held:
When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000 within two months from today.
16. In the Bombay Pavement Dwellers case Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation : AIR1986SC180 the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution in the following words at pages 193 and 194:
The sweep of the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right of life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.
17. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : [1987]1SCR819 , the writ petition was filed for a direction for closure of the various units of M/s. Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, manufacturing caustic soda chlorine including its byproducts on the ground that they were hazardous to the community. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was escape of oleum gas from one of the units, and applications were filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association for award of compensation to the persons who had suffered harm on account of escape of oleum gas. Chief Justice Bhagawati observed (vide page 405):
This Court has on numerous occasions pointed out that where there is a violation of a fundamental or other legal right of a person or class of persons who by reason of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach a court of law for justice, it would be open to any public spirited individual or social action group to bring an action for vindication of the fundamental or other legal right of such individual or class of individuals and this can be done not only by filing a regular writ petition but also by addressing a letter to the Court.
X X X XIt may now be taken as well settled that Article 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights' of the people and for that purpose this Court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights. It is in realisation of this constitutional obligation that this Court has in the past innovated new methods and strategies for the purpose of securing enforcement of the fundamental rights, particularly in the case of the poor and the disadvantaged who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.
18. Sheela Bare v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1988SC2211 is another public interest litigation bringing to highlight the gross violations of the Constitutional and statutory rights of a large number of children in the country, who are suffering custodial restraints and for the protection and enforcement of their rights. The public-minded person, who brought this action, sought to withdraw the proceedings from the Court, but, the Supreme Court refused permission and directed that the applicant be deleted from the array of parties, and the Supreme court Legal Aid Committee to proceed with the prosecution. Venkatachaliah, J., speaking for the Bench observed at pages 450 and 451:
The proceedings in a public interest litigation are, therefore, intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of the rights, constitutional or statutory, of sizeable segments of the society, which owing to poverty, ignorance, social and economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert-and quite often not even aware of-those rights. The technique of public interest litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce these group rights and interests. In order that these public-causes are brought before the courts, the procedural techniques judicially innovated specially for the public interest action recognises the concomitant need to lower the locus standi thresholds so as to enable public minded citizens or social-action-groups to act as conduits between these classes of persons of inherence and the forum for the assertion and enforcement of their rights.
X X X XMore importantly the court is not merely a passive, disinterested umpire or onlooker, but has a more dynamic and positive role with the responsibility for the organisation of the proceedings, moulding of the relief and-this is important also supervising the implementation thereof.
19. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Raj Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Writs), appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu is that this petition for redressing injury suffered by a section of the community in Coimbatore on account of the orgy of violence let loose in the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31-10-1984 is not maintainable, inasmuch as none of those persons affected thereby have chosen to claim any relief. This contention has been repeatedly thrown overboard by the Supreme Court in the several decisions cited above. The members of the Sikh community in Coimbatore, who have been the target of attack for no fault of theirs, form a microscopic minority and are in a socially disadvantageous position. They and a few members of the other communities whose properties have also been subjected to destruction, as a spill over, have been economically ruined. These socially and economically disadvantaged have neither the time nor the money to indulge in expensive and dialatory forensic process. It is here, the Supreme Court has pointed out, that 'whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury'. The public minded persons or organizations have to be allowed to move the court and act for a general or group interest, even though they may not be directly injured in their own right (Vide Judge's Transfer Case, 1981 S.C.C. (Supp.) 87. The rule of locus standi has thus been broadened for the purpose of development of public law. The credentials of the petitioners for their bona fides and public interest can hardly be questioned and they are, therefore, eminently fitted to bring this litigation for the redressal of the public injury suffered by the victim of arson and looting that have rocked the city of Coimbatore on 31-10-1984. It is too late in the day for the Government of Tamil Nadu to raise the plea of non-maintainability of this public interest litigation.
20. It is then urged that the violent incidents that took place on 31-10-1984 at Coimbatore were not pre-planned. There was a sudden outburst of the emotions and resentment of the general mourning public in the wake of the assassination of the Prime Minister by her own security guards in a cruel manner and hooligans, who were in the midst of the general public have utilised the mourning situation and caused damages to the properties of a particular community. According to the learned Counsel for the State Government all possible steps were taken to maintain communal harmony and safeguard the interest of the minority people and because of the effective and timely action taken major damages were averted and there was no loss of life. The few violent incidents took place all of a sudden and the situation was brought under control within a very short time. The news of the assassination of the Prime Minister has spread throughout the city of Coimbatore in the forenoon of 31-10-1984 and the Collector of Coimbatore has convened a conference of police and Revenue officials and alerted the forces of law and order. The members of the Sikh community have been shifted to a place of safety inside the Central Jail, but, unfortunately no step has been taken to protect their properties. The volcano of violence has erupted only in the evening and unruly elements have broken open the buildings, looted the belongings and set fire to the buildings, the vehicles and whatever they could lay their hands on. It seems that no policeman was present at the scene and this has emboldened the hooligans to indulge freely in these acts of depredation. This is what Miss. Geetha Ramaseshan has stated in her report, the admissibility of which and the truth of the averments wherein are not disputed:
When I visited the buildings the stench of fire was still strong. There was nothing but rubble around. And the building itself was in total ruins. There was no trace of the residence of Mr. Khem Singh, I was informed that the fire raged for 3 days and the fire engine did not come at all. I was told that when the fire engine came they found it difficult to operate due to the stone throwing indulged in by the mob. It appears that the police never came on the scene. The fire burned itself out while neighbours fixed hoses connecting their water supply and tried to check the fire from spreading.
After referring to the destruction caused to some other buildings, the Gurudwara and also to the nearby Satyanarayana temple, Miss. Geetha Ramaseshan, proceeds to observe:
According to some of the Sikhs whom I met, the mobs were comprised mostly of urchins in the age group of 15 to 35 armed merely with sticks and stones and kerosene. In one house the women told me that the mob could not break open their door. Hence, they set fire to a car and threw fireballs inside the rooms through the window. According to various people whom I met, the mobs first plundered the stores and houses of the Sikhs and then set fire to whichever building or vehicles they could lay their hands on.
X X X XIt was felt by a lot of people, that timely action by the authorities would have gone a long way in checking the looting and arson that engulfed the city. It was also felt that the police had not acted as fast as they should have. In many instances the police did not resort to even a mild lathi charge. It was felt by quite a few people whom I met that if this had been done, or even if shots were fired in the air or if tear gas shells were used, the mob would have dispersed.
It is obvious that the police have come to the scene very late and their efforts to quell the riots were half-hearted. The action of the Police was lethargic and inefficient. Even according to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, the situation has been brought under control only on 4-11-1984. There has been a virtual breakdown of law and order on 31-10-1984 and subsequent days resulting in huge losses to the members of the Sikh community and to few others in the vicinity.
21. The maintenance of law and order is the primary duty on the State and under our Constitution it is a State subject and tops the State list. No Government worth the name can abdicate this function and put the life and liberty, the hearth and home of the citizens in jeopardy. Article 38 of the Constitution enjoins on the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Under Article 19(e) and (g) of the Constitution any citizen of this country is entitled to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business. Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his right or personal liability except according to the procedure established by law. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Bombay Pavement Dwellers' Case : AIR1986SC180 no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood and the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood, to the point of abrogation. Under Article 300(A) of the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and to allow his properties to be reduced to ashes by the force of darkness and evil is a clear deprivation of the right to property guaranteed by the Constitution. The members of the Sikh community form an integral part of the Indian society; they have every right to settle down in Coimbatore and carry on their profession. They have the Constitutional right to live and they cannot be deprived of their means of livelihood. Their right to property is inviolable. All these Constitutional rights of the Sikhs and a few members of the other communities have been flagrantly infringed by the inaction of the law enforcing authorities. Fundamental rights are not mere brutum fulmen; They are the throbbing aspirations and realities of civilised human life; they cannot be rendered desuetude or dead letter or as observed by Bhagawati, J., as he then was, 'a paper parchment, a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality' by the failure of the State to protect those rights. These unfortunate victims of arson and violence are, therefore, entitled to seek reasonable compensation from the State of Tamil Nadu which has failed in its duty to protect their Constitutional and legal rights.
22. Now to the quantum. The petitioners have prayed for the appointment of a panel of commissioners consisting of a senior District Judge and a competent technical personnel and to submit concrete proposals for rehabilitation of the affected members. But, this has become needless now that the Collector of Coimbatore has enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed report, as conceded by Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The Collector has gone into the matter in detail and after taking into consideration all factors including the payments made by the Insurance Companies recommended payment of compensation in 32 cases for the loss of movables and damages to immovables. The total amount of compensation recommended by the Collector comes to Rs. 33,19,033. The assessment made by the Collector is not challenged before me. Legally and morally, by all canons of fair-play, by all principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the second respondent-State of Tamil Nadu is bound to pay compensation to the victims as assessed and recommended by its senior official. Instead, the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No. 913, dated 29-4-1986 awarding ex-gratia payment of a beggarly amount of Rs. 750 to each of the twenty persons affected by the Coimbatore riots, who have, however, refused to receive this payment, if I may say so, rightly, with a sense of self-respect. It is a matter of regret that the State of Tamil Nadu, which has failed to carry out its elementary function of enforcing public order should treat the victims of its own lapses as beggars with bowls for alms. It is not charity that is expected of the Government, but legal recompense for wrongs done to them, for injuries inflicted on them on account of the breakdown of the Governmental machinery. The second respondent State of Tamil Nadu cannot, therefore, shirk its responsibility for these unfortunate happenings or try to escape from its obligation as a social welfare State to make suitable amends.
23. In the result, a writ of mandamus shall issue directing the second respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to pay compensation to the victims of the Coimbatore riots strictly as per the report of the Collector of Coimbatore dated 11-2-1985 in the sum of Rs. 33,19,033 as assessed and recommended by the Collector. It is represented that some of the buildings have since been repaired and renovated. The Collector shall make an enquiry as to whether the renovation has been done by the owner or the occupant and pay the compensation accordingly. The payments should be made within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
24. Before parting with this case, I would like to place on record my deep appreciation of the public spirit and courage displayed by Miss. Geetha Ramaseshan in visiting the riot-torn area, making an on-the-spot enquiry and submitting a report to her Association on the basis of which this writ petition has been filed. I wish and hope that there is more and more awakening of the public mind to the happenings around us, to the sufferings of the less fortunate sections of the community, so that we could build a classless, fearless society imbibed with a high sense of human values.