Bhajan Kaur Vs Delhi Administration Through the Lt Governor - Citation 695706 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, a window of a riot victim, seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000.00 awarded to her on account of the death of her husband.

(2) Shri Narain Singh, petitioner's husband, lost his life on November 1, 1984, in the riots which took place after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. On the fateful day he was traveling by Bombay Ferozepur Janta Express Train. According to the Fir No. 355 dated November 1, 1984, lodged at the Police Station New Delhi Railway Station around 12.30 Noon, the train slopped at Tughlakabad Railway Station where 300-350 villagers surrounded it. They pulled out 25/26 Sikh passengers from the train and killed them. The persons killed included Narain Singh son of Jawahar Singh, resident of Village Bhalajala, Tehsil Taran Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab (for particulars see death certificate at page 6 of the writ record).

(3) On October 20, 1986, after about two years of the incident, the Delhi Administration awoke to the need to compensate the petitioner for her loss and made an ex gratia payment of Rs.20,000.00 to her by means of a cheque, a copy whereof is at page 11 of the writ record. The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount paid to her is too meagre and the same should be enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner in support of her plea about the inadequacy of the compensation has averred that heirs of the persons killed by militants or the police have been paid Rs.2 lakhs each as compensation. She also cites the example of victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

(4) The short question involved in the writ petionis whether an ex gratia payment of Rs.20,000.00 paid to a widow or family of a person killed during riots would be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. I have heard Mr. Adarsh Goel, learned counsel appearing for the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, and Mr. Madan Lokur, learned counsel for the Union of India.

(5) This case demonstrates how innocent lives were snuffed out by barbaric mobs indulging in an orgy of violence after the brutal killing of Smt. Indira Gandhi. It is not difficult to visualise the terror, pain and the suffering which must have struck the affected people not at the hands of beasts but fellow beings belonging to the same mother land to which the dead belonged. Bemoaning the loss of the near ones, how they would have preferred beast to human beings for company and must have yearned for a place free of marauding crowds - yearned for a place where fear would not enter yearned for a situation described in the following words of Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore :-

'IFI were the soil, if I were the water, If I were the grass or fruit or flower, If I were to roam about the earth with beasts and birds, there would be nothing to fear, In never-ending lies wherever I go, it will be the limitless me.'

(6) Communal violence and riots keep on manifesting with alarming frequency. It is the State's obligation to create conditions where rights of individuals or group of persons under Article 21 arc not and cannot be violated. It is for the State and its functionaries to evolve methods and strategic to ensure protection of life and liberty of a person or persons which is guaranteed by Article 21. It is obvious that there will be no use of the rights conferred by Article 21 if the State does not exact compliance of the same from its officials and functionaries and private persons. Votaries of violence may strike for different reasons but each lime it results in negation of Article 21. Life and liberty is being threatened at the hands of anti-national and anti-social elements, caste champions, criminals and rapists, etc. In some parts of the country terrorists and religious zealots are destroying life in the name of religion. The way a person wants to worship his God should not be a matter for hale or contempt of an individual, jeopardising and threatening his liberty.

(7) It is the duty and responsibility of the State to secure and safeguard life and liberty of an individual from mob violence. It is not open to the State to say that the violations are being committed by private persons for which it cannot be held accoutable. Riots more often than not take place due to weakness, laxity and indifference of the administration in enforcing law and order. If the authorities act in time and act effectively and efficiently, riots can surely be prevented. Message must go to the mischief mongers that the administration means business and their nefarious designs would be thwarted with an iron hand.

(8) Personal liberty is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The lofty purpose of Article 21 would he defeated if the State does not lake adequate measures for securing compliance with the same. The State has to control and curb the malefic (Sec Crimes in India-Ministry of Home Affairs, 1993) page 13 - col. 13 and page 19. propensities of those who threaten life and liberty of others. It must shape the society so that the life and liberty of an individual is safe and is given supreme importance and value. It is for the State to ensure that persons live and behave like and are treated as human beings. Article 21 is a great landmark of human liberty and it should serve its purpose of ensuring the human dignity, human survival and human development. The State must strive to give a new vision and peaceful future to its people where they can cooperate, coordinate and co-exist with each other so that full protection of Article 21 is ensured and realised. Article 21 is not a mere platitude or dead letter lying dormant, decomposed, dissipated and inert. It is rather a pulsating reality throbbing with life and spirit of liberty, and it must be made to reach out to every individual within the country. It is the duly and obligation of the State to enforce law and order and to maintain public order so that the fruits of democracy can be enjoyed by all sections of the society irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, region and language. Article 21 is an instrument and a device to attain the goal of freedom of an individual from deprivation and oppression and its violation cannot and must not be tolerated or condoned. Preamble to the Constitution clearly indicates that justice, liberty and equality must be secured to all citizens. Besides, it mandates the State to promote fraternity among the people, ensuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. Article 38 of the Constitution also requires the State to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice - social, economic and political, pa shall inform all institutions of the national life. These are the goals set by the Constitution, and Article 21 and other fundamental rights are the means by which those goals arc to be attained. thereforee, it becomes the responsibility and avowed duly of the State to adopt means and methods in order to realise the chershed aims.

(9) The sweep of Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Article 21 is not to be restricted to the violation of right to life and liberty committed by the State alone. That right is also to be protected and safeguarded by the State from being violated or interfered with by private individuals. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & another : [1996]1SCR278 , the Supreme Court held that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every person and it cannot permit any body or group of persons to threaten it. The Supreme Court in this regard held as follows :-

'WE are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our constitution confers certain rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the Aapsu, to threaten the Chukkas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it. fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well being of Chukkas residing in the State without being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their applications the Chukkas arc denied rights, Constitutional and statutory, to be considered for being registered as citizens of India. '

(10) Article 21 is the Nation's commitment to bring every individual or group of persons within its protective fold. This Nation belongs to members of all the communities. They arc equal members of the Indian society. Equality before law and equal protection of laws is ensured to them by Article 14 of the Constitution to them. None is to be favoured or discredited. The conduct of any person or group of persons has to be controlled by the State for the lofty purpose enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of the State to create a climate where the cleavage between members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed are eradicated. The State must act in time so that the precious lives of the people are not destroyed or threatened. Otherwise, Article 21 will remain a paper guarantee. Time is long overdue for adopting measures that have more than a hortatory effect in enforcing Article 21 of the Constitution. The State cannot adopt a 'do nothing altitude'. Like disease prevention, the State must lake every precaution, measure and initiative to prevent terrorem populi of the magnitude represented by 1984 riots and in the event of an outbreak of riots it must act swiftly to curb the same and not allow precious time to slip by, as any inaction or passivity on its part can result in loss of precious life and liberty of individuals amounting to violation and negation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State has to enforce minimum standards of civilized behavior of its citizens so that the life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual is protected and preserved and is not jeopardised or endangered. If it is not able to do all that then it cannot escape the liability to pay adequate compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which mandates that life cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law.

(11) Variety of problems like economic inequities, rampant indiscipline, divide on religious basis, degra dation of values and morality are afflicting the system. Do not such ailments actually promote, encourage and instigate violation of Article 21? I think they do. It is for the State to consider what corrective measures must be adopted to achieve the full realisation of the benefit of Article 21 to the people of this country. There are various factors apart from the ones stated above which are compounding the problem. For example, today the youth of the country is being feasted on movies which are filled with violence and obscenity. They are having a taste of a culture developed elsewhere and brought to them by powerful media. The songs and the dances sequences are also doing their hit in changing their moral fibre. Precious little has been done to remedy and rectify the situation. Let us give to ourselves and our children our own life traditions and culture which is essentially Indian. Five decades earlier the officials who were corrupt could be spotted and identified, but today corruption is rampant. Again very little has been done to eradicate it. State must address itself to question whether compliance with Article 21 is possible so long as these maladies in the society remain. If the State earnestly wants to improve the situation, there is nothing which can prevent them from removing the maladies which infest the public life today. Riots arc manifestations of the illness. There has been little or no effort to cure the illness. The argument that the State cannot legislate or enforce morals, or law is not equipped to exact compliance with moral values, cannot be allowed to be pleaded. It is often said that 'the devil himself know the not the mind of man'. Yet the attainment of minimum standards of morality and civilised behavior have motivated imposition of punishment and sanction by ordinary criminal laws. Again fundamental rights and directive principles of State policy have been founded on the bed rock of morality, human values and concept of justice. If the situation is allowed to drift and no corrective measures are taken, it will serve as an inexhaustible flash point for tumultuous disturbance of peace by anti-national & anti social elements.

(12) The following decisions of the Supreme Court show the range of Article 21:

(13) In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others : 1990CriLJ671 , it was held that Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. This was a case where the Supreme Court held that doctors were duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life, and every doctor whether at a Government hospital or other wise was required to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. It was further held that an injured person must be first treated even before the police is contacted.

(14) In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others : [1984]2SCR67 , the Supreme Court observed that it was the fundamental right of every citizen in this country to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. In this regard it will be advantageous to extract part of para 10 of the judgment :-

'....It is the fundamental right of every one in this country, assured under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Frances Mullin's case : 1980CriLJ548 to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (0 of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, thereforee, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government - has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials. ...'

(15) It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court directed the State of Haryana to ensure that the private contractors exploiting the mines and quarries comply with the social welfare and labour laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen so that there is no violation of the right of the workmen to live with human dignity as enshrined in Article 21. As is evident from the decision of the Supreme Court, the obligation to secure compliance with the social welfare and labour laws by the contractors was placed on the Stale. In other words, it was the State which was held responsible for the protection of the rights conferred on the workers employed in the quarries and mines run by private, contractors.

(16) In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, : AIR1986SC180 , it was held that the sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. In this regard it was held as follows :-

'IF the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the cagiest 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. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. There is, thus, a close nexus between life and the means of livelihood and as such that, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. '

(17) In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, : [1991]1SCR5 , where relief was sought under Article 32 of the Constitution for directing the Director of Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries, Hazaribagh, and the Tala Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith discharge of slurry/sludge from their washeries into Bokaro river, the Supreme Court held that Article 32 was designed for enforcement of fundamental rights of a citizen. It further held that right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free-water and air for full enjoyment of life. It was observed that if anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen should have a right to recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. It may be noted that this was a case where the pollution was being caused by private parties and yet the court under Article 32 of the Constitution held that petition could be filed for enforcement of Article 21 to prevent pollution.

(18) Thus, it is obvious from the aforesaid observations that it is the State's obligation to protect and preserve life. It must act and create conditions conducive for one to lead a life of dignity, a life which is livable as opposed to mere animal existence. This is bare minimal which the State is required to do under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(19) It cannot be denied that the State recognised the factum of death of the petitioner's husband during the riots and it was in recognition thereof that the financial assistance in the form of compensation of Rs.20,000.00 was given to the petitioner. This compensation to a widow or the family of a person who lost his life during the riots is highly inadequate. It is mockery of compensation for a riot victim. When a wife loses her husband, children their father, parents their son in a riot, it amounts to a cruel joke to give Rs.20,000.00 as financial aid to the family of a deceased. This paltry sum of Rs.20,000.00 cannot by any standard be the tower of their hope and strength. The very offer of such a sum would aggravate the pain and suffering, rather than reducing the same. The lime when the blow is fresh, it is then that the family should receive adequate financial aid or compensation to tide over immediate financial crisis and look to the future with a glimmer of hope. It is true that life of an individual cannot be compensated by payment of money, but at the same time it relieves financial strain and alleviates the sufferings of the victims and their families. Financial aid of Rs.20,000.00 as a measure of immediate relief is, as already stated, grossly inadequate and is far from being just, fair and reasonable. It is no victory for the victim.

(20) What compensation should be awarded as a measure of immediate relief to a riot victim can be gathered from the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

(21) In Kewal Pati (Smt) v. State of U.P. and others : 1995CriLJ2920 , the Supreme Court directed the State of U.P. to pay Rs.l lakh to the wife of a prisoner who was killed in jail by a co-prisoner.

(22) In Mrs. Sudha Rasheed and others v. Union of India and others 1995 (1) Scale 20, the Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000.00 to the family of the deceased for custodial death in a writ petition filed by the widow under Article 32 of the Constitution.

(23) Ln Ajit Singh v. State of Delhi and others, 1995 (1) Scale 54, the Apex Court for the alleged custodial death of the son of the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.l lakh subject to such further claims as the petitioner and the other heirs of the deceased may prosecute in a civil court.

(24) In yet another case Durga Prasad Tomar and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1995 (1) Scale 146, where the victims were kept in wrongful confinement for a period of 7 days, the Supreme Court directed the State of U.P. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as compensation to the petitioners.

(25) In Bhim Singh, Mla v. State of J.& K. and others 1986 Crl.L.J. 192 the petitioner was directed to be paid a sum of Rs.50,000.00 by the State as he had been illegally detained.

(26) Though the aforesaid cases do not pertain to riots, but broadly the quantum of compensation or financial aid for the loss of a near one can be ascertained there from. The decisions show that the judicial trend is to award substantial compensation for illegal extinction or deprivation of life and liberty. The loss of life in jail at the hands of inmates or jail authorities and loss of life outside the jail at the hands of functionaries of the State or rioters bring the same tragic results for the families of the victims. thereforee, no distinction can be made for the purpose of grant of compensation in the aforesaid situations. Thus the principles for grant of compensation or financial aid to the families of the victims whose lives are taken away without due process of law should be the same.

(27) Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and decisions it appears to me that the ex gratia payment made to the petitioner and families of the riot victims of 1984 is unrealistic and does not equip them to lead a life of dignity and proper human existence, and to be able to live an adequate human life to satisfy human wants - if all human wants cannot be satisfied, they should be satisfied so far as possible and at least to the extent of decent human minimum. The State is duly bound to adopt a realistic approach in keeping with the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State should be mindful of the fact that in cases where liberty of individuals was curtailed illegally the Supreme Court awarded Rs.50,000.00 as compensation to them with a right to prosecute their claims for further compensation in appropriate proceedings.

(28) Here we arc concerned with illegal extinction of life by mobs which put into execution their plans openly in public places and in full gaze of the authorities. It was not something done clandestinely for which the State could plead ignorance. At least in the capital of the country the State has requisite resources to prevent the riots. It cannot afford to ignore even a small indication or sign of a likely flare up of communal tension, and at that stage itself it has to respond by educating the masses and deploying adequate police or para military forces to diffuse the situation. The Report of Justice R.N. Misra Commission of Inquiry refers to the passivity, callousness and indifference of the police of Delhi in the matter of controlling the situation during the 1984 riots. In this regard, the Commission observed as follows:-

'ON the other hand, as held earlier, the evidence fits into the position that when the incidents started taking place and the police remained passive, leading to the generation of feeling that if Sikhs were harassed no action would be taken, the situation fast deteriorated and the anti-socials got into the fray and gave the lead after taking over the situation......... (Page 30 of the report) There is abundant evidence before the Commission that the Police on the whole did not behave properly and failed to act as a professional force. Telephone No.100 which is meant for notifying for police assistance did not respond at all during that period. The police stations when contacted on telephone ordinarily did not respond and if there was any response it was a plea of inability to assist. The behavior of most policemen was shabby in the sense that they allowed people to be killed, houses to be burnt, property to he looted, ladies to be dragged and misbehaved with in their very presence. Their plea was that they were a few and could not meet the unruly armed mob usually of hundreds or thousands. Some senior police officers had taken the stand that the community was in a frenzy and to meet the cruel mob greater strength of force was necessary. Obviously, the police could not expect that their number had to be, equal to that of the miscreants. A professional police force by its expertise, experience and training was expected to meet any challenge and was not to seek cover under an umbrella of excuses based upon instructions in archaic Police Rules. Has any hero been heard of opening his scriptures when he suddenly meets a challenge to his life.......... (Pages 33 & 34 of the report) There is evidence which the Commission cannot ignore that on several occasions when fire tenders started moving to places of arson on receiving intimation, the mobs blocked the passage and held them up or forced them to return. On several occasions this was done in the presence of the poice. It is well-known that fire lenders have precedence of movement on the roads for they move to answer an emergency, yet the police did not attempt to clear the way. Several instances have come to be narrated where police personnel in uniform were found marching behind, or mingled in, the crowd. Since they did not make any attempt to slop the mob from indulging in criminal acts, an inference has been drawn I hat they were part of the mob and had the common intention and purpose. Some instances, though few in number, have also been noticed where policemen in uniform have participated in looting........... (Page 37 of the report) The Commission has found that the police at Delhi showed total passivity and callous indifference when called upon to perform its duly.' (Page 73 of the report)

(29) While considering the question of grant of compensation or ex-gratia payment to the petitioner and families of the victims killed during the riots, all the aforesaid aspects have to be kept in view. It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court awarded Rs.l lakh to Rs.7.5 lakhs for illegal curtailment of life as indicated in the aforesaid decisions. thereforee, obviously the compensation or ex gratia payment as a measure of immediate relief to the victim's family should be more than Rs.50,000.00 and between Rs.l lakh and Rs.7.5 lakhs.

(30) It has been brought to my notice by Mr. Adarsh Goel, learned counsel for the respondenl-Govt. of Nct of Delhi, that widows of riot victims are being paid Rs.l,000.00 per month as pension. Learned counsel has produced on record a copy of letter No. F.9(38)/R-1/DC/88/648 dated May 17, 1996, from the Deputy Director (Relief-1), Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to the Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi, along with report regarding progress of relief and rehabilitation measures in. regard to riot victims of 1984. According to the report, 195 widows are getting pension. Be that as it may, the financial assistance of Rs.20,000.00 , which was to ameliorate the immediate effect and the long term effect of the killing of an earning hand, was highly inadequate and unfair.

(31) Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and also keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been paid at least a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, as compensation. Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs.2o,000.00 , the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000.00 to the petitioner with interest from October 1984 to the date of payment, which is quantified at Rs.l.50 lakhs. The respondent will make the payment of Rs.3.30 lakhs to the petitioner within one month.

(32) This direction to pay enhanced compensation would be applicable to similar cases in order to secure parity and to alleviate the sufferings of the families of the victims who lost their lives during the Delhi riots of 1984. Accordingly, it is directed that the widows & families of the victims who lost their lives in the 1984 Delhi riots be paid a sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs (Rs.2 lakhs with interest quantified at Rs.l.50 lakhs). The payment would be made to them by the respondent after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to them as ex gratia grant or compensation. It will also be open to the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and the Union of India to consider the grant of compensation over and above the aforesaid amount depending upon the circumstances of the families of the riots victim. I would also direct the State to constitute a Committee to disburse the amount of compensation quantified as above to the families of those who were killed in rols afTer their proper identification. I order accordingly. The exercise should be completed within a period of four months. The State and the Union, as the case may be, will be well advised to locate the responsibility for the riots whenever and wherever they occur and the persons held responsible for the same should be made to pay compensation and the law should provide for confiscation of their properties so as to secure payment of compensation out of the assets so confiscated. In case it is found that an official or officials of the State did not act in time or were indifferent to mob violence, they should also be required to make reparations to the victims and face disciplinary proceedings.

(33) With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of.

Subject	Constitution
Court	Delhi High Court
Decided On	Jul-05-1996
Case Number	Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996
Judge	A.D. Singh, J.
Reported in	1996IIIAD(Delhi)333; 3(1996)CLT337; 1996(38)DRJ203; ILR1996Delhi754
Acts	Constitution of India - Article 21
Appellant	Bhajan Kaur
Respondent	Delhi Administration Through the Lt. Governor
Advocates:	Adarsh Goel and; Madan Lokur, Advs
Cases Referred	Mla v. State of J.

Bhajan Kaur Vs. Delhi Administration Through the Lt. Governor - Court Judgment