In his complaint to the NHRC, Shaikh emphasized the profound impact of his nine-year imprisonment on his personal and professional life. He explained that his delayed compensation claim was intentional, aiming to ensure that all co-accused in the 7/11 case, who were also innocent, receive similar redress. Shaikh’s demand aligns with the Bombay High Court’s recent judgment, which reaffirmed the case’s baselessness and the violation of fundamental human rights over nearly two decades.

“The wrongful imprisonment caused a severe nine-year gap in my professional and personal life. My career, education and personal development were destroyed. The stigma of being falsely branded a ‘terrorist’ continues to haunt me even after acquittal.”he wrote to NHRC

‘It was not a pleasant moment for me to seek compensation when they were still languishing behind bars, and I feared that the State could have been more brutal towards them and taken revenge for my compensation claim. I decided to wait until all my co-accused were acquitted and proven innocent. Now that these acquittals have taken place, it is clear that the entire case was a forgery, and therefore, my demand for compensation becomes even more legitimate and urgent. At this juncture, I believe it is fully justified to seek justice for myself. ‘ he said in a press note

Shaikh reiterated his long-standing position that those wrongfully incarcerated should be granted at least ₹1 crore for each year of imprisonment, though he added that no amount could ever truly compensate for the years lost.

Referring to the recent Bombay High Court judgment, Shaikh said it reaffirmed what he and others have maintained for years — that the case was “entirely bogus” and that their fundamental human rights had been gravely violated for nearly two decades.

Muhammad Aamir Khan, who spent 14 years in prison for being accused of involvement in bomb blasts in the Delhi-NCR region. Before being acquitted of all charges in 2012, told This reporter that he has continued to work on the issue of wrongful incarceration since his release. “We have even met the President regarding compensation. He expressed concern, but nothing concrete has materialized yet. Still, I remain optimistic,” he said.

Highlighting what he sees as a stark injustice,  he pointed out that in India, “militants who surrender their arms are often rehabilitated and compensated. Those who openly admit to killings or bombings are offered state support. But people who are wrongfully accused of terrorism, who lose years of their lives in jail, are almost never compensated.”

In 2014, the NHRC awarded Khan ₹5 lakh in compensation for his wrongful incarceration; he received it in 2018.

India currently lacks a statutory framework mandating compensation for individuals wrongfully accused and incarcerated, including in terrorism-related cases. Over the years, civil society organizations, legal experts, and the Law Commission of India have advocated for such a framework to ensure that victims of wrongful imprisonment receive recognition, financial relief, and a formal acknowledgment of the state’s error. Compensation in these cases serves as both an apology and a step toward accountability, acknowledging the grave injustice suffered by individuals and their families.

The Law Commission of India’s Report No. 277 (2018). highlights the absence of a statutory framework for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration. It underscores the severe social, psychological, and economic consequences endured by the wrongfully accused, including loss of liberty, livelihood, and reputation. Drawing on international practices and findings from the Innocent People’s Tribunal, the report recommends a legal mechanism providing both monetary and non-monetary relief, reflecting the duration of detention and personal losses, along with specialized courts to assess compensation claims efficiently.Civil society initiatives have complemented these efforts. Notably, the Innocent Network’s People’s Tribunal systematically examined cases of individuals acquitted in terrorism-related cases and highlighted the urgent need for state recognition and redress.

‘I’m quite hopeful I would be compensated for my lost years , especially after this case has been proven to be bogus by the Bombay High Court’, said Shaikh with a smile.

Osama Rawal holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Elphinstone College and has been actively involved in people’s movements across Maharashtra. He is a researcher and activist with the Innocence Network—an alliance of activists, lawyers, and civil society groups dedicated to securing justice for individuals wrongfully convicted, especially in terrorism-related cases

Courtesy: CounterCurrents

The post Abdul Wahid Shaikh, acquitted in 7/11 Mumbai train blast case, demands ₹9 crore as Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court not only quashed a retaliatory FIR filed against the victim under Section 309 IPC for “attempt to suicide” but directed the immediate arrest of the officers involved and ordered the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay ₹50 lakh as constitutional compensation, recoverable from the guilty officers following departmental proceedings. The CBI has also been tasked with investigating systemic failures and institutional impunity at the JIC.

“The unprecedented gravity of this case involving brutal and inhuman custodial torture, characterised by the complete mutilation of the appellant’s genitalia, represents one of the most barbaric instances of police atrocity which the State is trying to defend and cover up with all pervasive power. The medical evidence conclusively establishes that such injuries are impossible to be self-inflicted. The respondent’s theory of suicide attempt crumbles under scrutiny when examined against the timeline and the medical evidence.” (Para 19)

Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta described the case as one involving “unprecedented gravity”, with complete mutilation of genitalia, pepper powder and electric shocks on private parts, and injuries consistent with custodial torture techniques such as falanga, the presence of multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and anal insertion. The Court found the state’s claim of attempted suicide “medically impossible”, rejecting it as a fabricated counter-narrative aimed at shielding perpetrators.

“More significantly, the respondent’s suicide theory is demolished when assessed in light of the medical evidence, which decisively rules out the theory of the harm being self-inflicted. The complete surgical removal of both testicles, the extensive injuries to the appellant’s palms and soles, consistent with custodial torture techniques such as falanga, the presence of multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and bruising on the buttocks extending to the thighs all points to a pattern of sustained and systematic torture. These injuries are medically impossible to be self-inflicted, particularly in the absence of fatal haemorrhage or loss of consciousness, as would have occurred had the mutilation been self-administered. The respondent’s reliance on superficial cuts to the forearm as indicative of a suicide attempt pales in comparison to the magnitude and nature of the injuries sustained.” (Para 20)

The Case: A signal, a summons, a six-day ordeal

The appellant, Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, a police constable posted in Baramulla, received a signal on February 17, 2023 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, instructing him to report to the SSP Kupwara for an enquiry into a narcotics matter. On February 20, he complied and reported to the Joint Interrogation Centre. What followed, according to the Supreme Court, was six days of illegal detention and “barbaric, medically irrefutable torture.”

What followed, the Court held, was “systematic, brutal, and medically irrefutable torture.” According to medical records from SKIMS, Srinagar, where Chohan was eventually shifted in critical condition:

• Genital mutilation: His testicles were amputated and brought in a plastic bag by a Sub-Inspector to the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), where he was admitted in a critical condition on February 26.
• Other injuries: A 10 X 5 centimetres scrotal laceration, bruises on the buttocks, fractures, tenderness in palms and soles, and vegetative particles in his rectum were documented.
• Surgery: The SKIMS discharge summary confirmed surgical procedures for reconstruction and repair of the urethra and scrotal wounds.

FIR Against Victim, Not Perpetrators: A legal travesty

On the same day Chohan was admitted to hospital, the police lodged FIR No. 32/2023 under Section 309 IPC, accusing him of “attempting suicide by cutting his vein with a razor blade under a blanket” at the JIC barracks.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected this FIR as a “calculated fabrication”, noting that:

• The FIR contradicted medical records, which established injuries that were far more severe and inaccessible for self-infliction.
• The forensic and CCTV evidence, used by the state to allege suicide, was dismissed as inadequate to override the weight of medical evidence showing extreme torture.
• The FIR was a “pre-emptive defence mechanism”, constituting abuse of process, falling squarely within grounds for quashing as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

“In the present case, the authorities, instead of registering the complaint of the appellant regarding custodial torture, filed a counter FIR against him under Section 309 of the IPC. Perusal of the contents of FIR (supra) reflect that the allegations made therein are vague and manifestly contradictory to the established medical evidence. The FIR states that the appellant tried to cut his vein with a blade, however, the medical records, above discussed, reveal that the injuries are much graver and more extensive than what is depicted in this manifestly fabricated narrative. The stark disparity between the trivial description of ‘cutting his vein’ in the FIR and the barbaric reality of complete castration and systematic torture exposes the mala fide intent behind registering this counter FIR.” (Para 31)

Judicial Rebuke to the High Court and police machinery

The Court was equally scathing of the J&K High Court’s failure to grant relief when Chohan’s wife, Rubina Aktar, moved a writ petition seeking registration of FIR and CBI investigation, and a miscellaneous petition to quash the suicide FIR.

The High Court had:

• Directed a preliminary enquiry to be conducted by the same SSP who summoned Chohan and whose subordinates were the accused—an act the Supreme Court termed a “flagrant violation of natural justice”.
• Refused to quash the suicide FIR or refer the matter to CBI, holding that the investigation was in its infancy—a finding reversed by the apex court.

The Supreme Court held that Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2014) mandates immediate registration of FIR where allegations disclose cognizable offences, and that no preliminary enquiry is permitted in custodial violence cases. The Court found that the High Court erred in law and failed to protect the victim’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

“The High Court committed a grave error in law by failing to exercise the writ jurisdiction and in refusing to apply the mandatory principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra). Instead of ordering immediate registration of FIR, the High Court directed the very same Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara who had issued the Signal dated 17th February, 2023 summoning the appellant and under whose jurisdiction the alleged torture occurred, to conduct an inquiry into his own subordinates’ actions. This direction constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice encapsulated in the Latin maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in his own cause). The High Court’s approach, by treating this as a case requiring a preliminary inquiry rather than immediate registration of FIR, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the settled legal position and has resulted in the denial of justice to the appellant who is the victim of custodial torture.” (Part 14)

Institutional complicity and systemic failure at JIC Kupwara

Taking a constitutional view of state accountability, the Court directed that the CBI shall not only investigate the individual acts of torture but also examine “systemic issues” at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara.

“Considering the unprecedented gravity of this custodial torture case, the systematic cover-up orchestrated by local police machinery, the institutional bias demonstrated in the handling of the complaint, and the complete failure of local authorities to conduct a fair investigation and the unrelenting stand taken by the respondent State, we are constrained to direct transfer of investigation to the CBI.” (Para 27)

“The majesty of law demands nothing less than complete independence and impartiality in investigating crimes that shock the conscience of society and violate the most fundamental principles of human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the transfer of investigation to the CBI becomes not merely advisable but constitutionally imperative to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.” (Para 27)

The CBI has been directed to:

• Register a Regular Case (RC) based on the March 1, 2023 complaint filed by the victim’s wife and the medical evidence on record. The RC is to be registered within 7 days of this order.
• Take over all existing documents, medical records, CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and case diary.
• The CBI is to also conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the systemic issues at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara, including examination of all CCTV systems, interrogation from all personnel present during the relevant period, forensic examination of the premises, and review of all protocols and procedures followed for detention and interrogation of suspects.
• FIR No. 32 of 2023, registered against the appellant under Section 309 of the IPC at Police Station Kupwara, to be quashed for being prima facie fabricated.
• Submit a status report to the Supreme Court by November 10, 2025.

Compensation as Constitutional Remedy: ₹50 lakh awarded

The Court awarded ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as compensation to the appellant, holding it to be a necessary constitutional remedy in light of the established violation of Article 21.

“A sequel to the above discussion and in order to provide some solace to the victim and his family for the barbaric acts of custodial torture leading to complete castration, we hereby direct the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the appellant (victim). The said amount shall be recoverable from the officer(s) concerned against whom a departmental proceeding shall be initiated upon conclusion of the investigation by the CBI.” (Para 38 (V))

Citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court reiterated that:

“Before we conclude, we deem it necessary to address the question of compensation to the appellant, who is a victim of brutal and inhuman custodial torture. It is now well-settled in Indian constitutional jurisprudence that where fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated by State machinery, appropriate monetary compensation may be an effective remedy. In D.K. Basu (supra), this Court held that pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and effective remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights caused by State officials and that the defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable. The Court noted that such compensation must focus on the compensatory element and serve as a balm to the victim, without prejudice to other remedies in civil or criminal law.” (Para 34)

The amount is recoverable from the officers found guilty, following completion of the CBI investigation and departmental proceedings. Notable, the compensation is without prejudice to Chohan’s right to pursue additional remedies.

Closing Words: Upholding the rule of law amid torture and power

In conclusion, the Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142, describing the case as a “gross abuse of state power” requiring independent, credible, and constitutionally driven accountability.

“Only investigation by an independent agency, i.e., CBI can restore public faith in the criminal justice system, ensure that this dehumanising crime does not go unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges without any institutional bias or cover-up attempts.” (Para 27)

The judgment sets a new precedent not just in affirming constitutional remedies for custodial violence, but also in highlighting the institutional duty of courts to intervene decisively where the state uses its apparatus to silence and punish those it has already harmed.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

She Set Herself on Fire to Be Heard: Odisha student’s death is a wake-up call

Custodial Horror in Sivagangai: Ajith Kumar’s death raises chilling parallels with Sathankulam

Custody, Camaraderie, and Cover-Up: Supreme Court transfers custodial death probe to CBI, slams MP police for “shielding their own”

The post “A Constitutionally Imperative to Ensure Justice”: Supreme Court Orders CBI probe, arrests, and ₹50 Lakh compensation for brutal custodial torture of constable in J&K appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On April 1, 2025, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the demolitions had been executed in blatant disregard of due process, with authorities failing to provide proper notice before destroying the residences. The ruling underscored the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21, reminding the state that “the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”

Violation of Due Process and Right to Shelter

The Court expressed its deep dismay at the brazen manner in which these demolitions were carried out. “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the manner which we have discussed in detail,” the bench stated, as per LiveLaw. Justice Oka, during the hearing, further criticised the conduct of the authorities, observing, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”

One of the most damning aspects of the ruling was the Court’s rejection of the method by which demolition notices were allegedly served. As per the details of the case, the authorities had affixed notices to properties instead of properly delivering them in person or by registered post, effectively depriving the occupants of any real opportunity to challenge the demolition orders. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka remarked, condemning the practice as a flagrant violation of legal safeguards.

Procedural lapses and flawed execution of notice

The timeline of events further illustrated the authorities’ disregard for procedural fairness. As dictated by Justice Oka in his order, a show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and immediately affixed, with a perfunctory note claiming two prior unsuccessful attempts at personal service. A demolition order followed on January 8, 2021, which was again affixed but never sent via registered post. The first registered post communication was dispatched only on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, and the demolition was carried out the very next day—denying the appellants any meaningful chance to exercise their right to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this approach, clarifying that the objective of the proviso to Section 27(1) was to ensure a genuine opportunity for affected individuals to respond before any demolition took place. “The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the Court held, as per a report in LiveLaw.

Interpretation of legal provisions on service of notice

The order also addressed the legal requirements for serving notices under Section 43 of the U.P. Planning Act. The Court highlighted that affixation could only be resorted to if personal service had genuinely been attempted and failed. “When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for effecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” the Court observed.

The Court’s ruling also referenced its 2024 decision in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down clear guidelines for the service of notices and procedural safeguards to be followed before demolishing structures. While the present case predated that judgment, the Court applied Section 43 to underscore the authorities’ failure to comply with even existing statutory requirements.

Compensation and accountability

Initially, the Court had considered allowing the appellants to rebuild their homes, provided they undertook to demolish them at their own cost if their appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. However, during the latest hearing, their counsel submitted that they lacked the financial means to do so, prompting the Court to award compensation instead. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, opposed this move, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. The Court rejected this line of reasoning outright, stating that the availability of alternative housing did not justify the violation of due process.

Justice Oka was emphatic that financial compensation was necessary to ensure accountability. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he declared during the hearing.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not ruled on the appellants’ ownership rights over the land in question, leaving them free to initiate proceedings to establish their title. Additionally, it directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines set out in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures going forward, ensuring that such abuses do not recur.

A win for due process, justice and equality

The case had an additional political dimension, with the petitioners alleging that the State had wrongly linked their properties to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was assassinated in 2023. They maintained that their homes were demolished without notice under this pretext. The Uttar Pradesh government countered that the structures were unauthorised and that the occupants had overstayed their leases. The Allahabad High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the State, dismissing the petitioners’ challenge on the grounds that their leases had expired in 1996 and that their freehold applications had been rejected in 2015 and 2019.

This Supreme Court order represents a crucial intervention against the increasing trend of illegal demolitions carried out under the guise of law enforcement. By awarding substantial compensation and issuing a strong condemnation of the Prayagraj Development Authority’s actions, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative expediency. The said stance of the Supreme Court sends a clear message that state authorities cannot bulldoze homes without following the law—a warning that should serve as a precedent in future cases of unlawful demolitions and state-sponsored targeting.

Related:

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hegemony and Demolitions: The Tale of Communal Riots in India in 2024

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions, awards Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each six victims for violation of due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, condemning the Uttar Pradesh government’s actions as “high-handed”, according to Live Law.

During the hearing, the court found that no notice was served to the victim and due process was not followed.

Ref. article: Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition can be read here

Regarding the failure to serve notice to the victims, CJI Chandrachud further remarked, “This is completely high-handed. Where is the due process? The affidavit shows no notice was issued; instead, you merely informed people at the site through loudspeakers,” as reported by Live Law.

However, in response to the state’s claim that the petitioner had encroached on public land, CJI Chandrachud stressed that, “You say he encroached on 3.7 square meters. We accept that, though we’re not granting him a certificate for it. But how can you start demolishing people’s houses like that? This is lawlessness—walking into someone’s home and demolishing it without notice.”

Public announcement used, not formal notice or due process

Justice Pardiwala also strongly criticized the authorities for relying solely on a public announcement and a drumbeat to notify residents, rather than following proper legal procedures. He remarked that, “You can’t just with the beat of a drum tell people to vacate houses and demolish them. There has to be proper notice.”

NHRC report taken into consideration by court

The bench relied on a report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which found that the highest encroachment in the case was just 3.70 square meters. The NHRC concluded that such a minimal encroachment did not justify demolishing the entire house. Based on its findings, the NHRC recommended granting interim compensation to the petitioner for the wrongful demolition. Additionally, the NHRC called for the registration of an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint and for the initiation of departmental and punitive action against the responsible officers.

Additionally, the Court observed that the authorities failed to conduct any inquiry to properly demarcate the encroachments. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that the land had been legally acquired prior to the demolitions.

SC directed UP Govt to pay 25 lakhs as a punitive compensation to the petitioner

The Court directed the State to pay an interim punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the petitioner, emphasizing that this amount would not hinder the petitioner from pursuing additional legal action for further compensation.

Additionally, the Court instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an investigation into all officers and contractors involved in the illegal demolitions, and to initiate appropriate disciplinary action. The Court also clarified that the State could pursue criminal action against those responsible. These directions must be implemented within one month.

Furthermore, the judgment outlined the procedural steps that state authorities must follow before carrying out any demolition for road-widening projects. According to Bar and Bench, the Court also ordered all States to adhere to the following while carrying out widening of roads:

While carrying road widening, States must ascertain:

– Existing width of road;

– If encroachment is found, notice has to be issued to remove the encroachment;

– If objection is raised, then a decision on objection should be rendered by way of a speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles;

If rejected, then reasonable time should be given to (the encroacher) to remove encroachment.

A copy of the ruling was ordered to be circulated to all States and Union Territories to ensure compliance.

Case Title: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash [W.P.(C) No. 1294/2020]

Related:

Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court warns against ‘bulldozing the rule of law,’ affirms that legal process, not allegations, must govern punitive actions

The post Bulldozer Justice: you can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of acting Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam of the Gauhati High Court while hearing the suo moto petition, granted a weeks’ time to the government to provide compensation to the dependent of the person who died while in custody and, whose houses were demolished by the police.

Brief Background of the case:

On May 21, 2022, Safiqul Islam (39) a local fish seller from the Salnabari area of Nagaon district in Assam was arrested by the police in a drinking case and subsequently taken to the Batadrawa Police Station. Family of Safiqul claims that the police demanded Rs 10, 000 as a bribe for his release. His family failed to secure the money immediately. Safiqul’s wife somehow arranged for the money but before she could reach the police, he was beaten to death while in custody.

On the same day in evening, a crowd set fire to the Batadrawa police station in protest of the custodial death of Safiqul Islam. A day after the police station was burnt down, the authorities illegally demolished the houses of the Safiqul and his relatives with a bulldozer.

In January, 2023, the Assam government notified that the accused official’s houses would be demolished and proper action would be taken against them.

The Gauhati High Court has granted the Finance Department of Assam a week’s time to inform the court when compensation will be paid, to those whose house were demolished by Assam Police.

It was informed to the court, by the counsel representing the Home and Political (A) Department, Government of Assam that the compensation amount had been determined and the matter had been referred to the Finance Department for processing.

The Gauhati High Court’s Suo Moto Action on Illegal Demolition:

On June 30, 2022, the division bench of then Chief Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saika have taken suo moto cognizance over the house bulldozed by the police personnel of Batadrawa Police Station.

On January 3, 2023, the bench directed the Assam government to take appropriate decision for compensating the persons affected by the illegal action of the officer and asked to produce report before the court.

On November 8, 2023, Senior Counsel for Assam submitted before the court that the One-Man Enquiry Committee constituted to enquire into the matter and sought 4 weeks’ time for submission of the enquiry report.

On December 12, 2023, the Assam government further prayed for three weeks’ time to submit the enquiry report, and the same was allowed by the court.

On January 12, 2024, the Assam Government produced a communication dated 10.01.2024 written by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam wherein it is stated that One Man enquiry Committee has submitted the inquiry report to the Government in the Home & Political Department on 04.01.2024. The Government further prayed for four weeks’ time to file an updated status report over the matter and the same allowed by the court.

On February 16, 2024, the government sought again a weeks’ time to submit the One-Man Committee report and the court also asked the government to inform the court about the measures taken by the State Government in response to the findings of the Committee report.

On April 4, 2024, the Assam Government submitted that the report submitted by the One-Man Enquiry Committee, the State Government has taken up the matter and the Political (A) Department of the Government of Assam has written a letter to the Secretary of the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department to assess the loss on account of demolition of houses of 6(six) persons. It is submitted that as soon as the assessment report is submitted, the compensation would be paid to the affected persons.

On May 3, 2024, the bench of acting Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam granted a week’s time to Assam State’s Finance Department to apprise the court on when the compensation would be paid, to those whose houses at Batadrava in Nagaon district in Assam were demolished by Assam Police in May, 2022.

Wife of the person who died in custody, filed a Writ Petition:

The writ petition (civil) No. 239 of 2024 was filed by Rashida Khatun, wife of Late Safiqul Islam (died in police custody) for seeking appropriate compensation from the Assam government over the custodial death of her husband in May, 2022.

On May 3, 2024, the division bench of High Court clubbed the Writ Petition (C) No. 239 with suo moto (PIL) No. 3 of 2022 and directed the state government to respond to why interim compensation should not be granted to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition.

Order of the High Court dated 03.05.2024 can be read here:

Compensation provided by the Assam Government:

On May 22, 2024, the Assam government submitted before the High Court that Nagaon Superintendent of Police paid the compensation money to the five families. The government informed that it will pay 2.5 lakh to the family of Safiqul Islam, who died in custody. He said that Islam’s family had not yet produced a next of kin certificate and authorities would process the payment once they obtain the document.

The counsel informed the court that Rs 10 lakh each was provided to Imamul Haque and Mojibur Rahman for the demolition of their concrete houses. Rs. 2.5 lakh was paid for each makeshift house demolished. Rehman was paid Rs 12.5 lakh as he had lost both a concrete and a makeshift house. They further added that, that the state government has sanctioned compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh for the family of Islam.

“This is a clear case of vicarious liability of the state,” the court observed.

CJP moved Gauhati High Court for aids victims of Assam police firing:

In CJP’s endeavour to bring justice to those rendered homeless in Assam during the eviction and to those who lost their family members to the police firing and brute action, we have filed two separate writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court.

One in the matter of the death of 12-year-old Sheikh Farid who fell victim to indiscriminate police firing at the eviction site, and another in the incident where a farmer, Maynal Haque, whose house was being forcefully demolished, and was shot at by the police.

The High Court had issued notice to the state government of Assam on the first petition (Sheikh Farid) October 25, 2021 and on the writ petition of the second victim (Maynal Haque) on November 1, 2021.

In both petitions, the family members of the victims are the petitioners, hoping that some justice is delivered to them. While Farid’s family lost a young child, Haque’s family lost the breadwinner leaving his only three young children without a father, a grieving widow, as well as his elderly parents childless.

CJP claimed that the petition underscores that the law is settled, that even trespassers cannot be evicted from any land without following the due process of law, which was, however, violated by use of brute force of the state police machinery in a period when people are beleaguered by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Both petitions point out that as per section 129 of the Code of Criminal procedure (CrPC) the police are to use civil force to disperse an assembly and under section 130, it is stipulated that “a police officer while seeking to disperse any assembly shall use as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly and arresting and detaining such persons.”

Further, even under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 99, a public servant cannot act in defence unless there is apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The petition also points out various provisions of the Assam Police Manual which prescribes how to deal with assemblies and when can firearms be used.

Also, international conventions such as Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials states that firearms should be used only in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Finally, in both cases, right to life under Article 21 of both the victims was violated and the deaths were caused in clear violation of the accepted norms and standard under the various laws and also the norms accepted under the international standards.

The Writ Petitions filed by CJP can be read here:

The order of the high court is yet to come, after final disposal of the petitions.

Related:

Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition

Report: 294 houses demolished on a daily basis in 2023 in India

Shocking: Delhi Police cannot control massive mob violence

The post 6 victims of demolition get compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs from Assam government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Manual scavenging – or the practice of removing human excreta by hand from sewer lines or septic tanks – has been banned under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. But, shamefully, the practice remains prevalent in several parts of the country.

A two-member bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar passed the directions while hearing a plea against the practice of manual scavenging.

The bench said that those who suffer permanent disabilities while cleaning sewers will be paid Rs 20 lakh minimum as compensation. Authorities will have to pay compensation of not less than Rs 10 lakh if the worker suffers other disabilities while cleaning sewers, it added.

The bench was pronouncing the judgment in the case Dr.Balram Singh v. Union of India, which is a Public Interest Litigation filed against the employment of manual scavengers. 

“Ours is a battle not for wealth of power. It is a battle fo t is a battle for reclamation of human personality” – these words of Dr.Ambedkar were quoted by Justice Bhat while pronouncing the judgment.

“If you have to be truly equal in all respects, the commitment that Constitution makers gave to all sections of society by entrenching emancipatory provisions such as Articles 15(2), 17 and 23 and 24, each of us must live up to its promise Union and States are duty bound to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging is completely eradicated.

“Each of us owe to this large segment of the population, who have remained unseen, unheard and muted, in bondage systematically trapped in inhuman conditions.

“The conferment of entitlements and placement of obligations upon the Union and States through the express prohibitions in the Constitution and provisions of the 2013 Act mean that they are obliged to implement the provisions in the letter and spirit,” Justice Bhat read out the operative parts of the judgement.

` “Upon all of us citizens lie the duty of realising true fraternity. It is not without reason that our Constitution has placed great emphasis on the values of fraternity But for these two, all other liberties are chimera. All of us today who proudly bask in the achievements of our republic have to awake and arise so that the darkness which has been the fate of generations of our people is dispelled and they enjoy these freedoms and justi and justice- social, economic and political- that we take for granted,” Justice Bhat read out from the judgment.” Today is the last day of Justice Ravindra Bhat in the Supreme Court as he retires. 

In 2014, the Supreme Court had directed that compensation of Rs 10 lakh should be paid to the 

kin of those who died while cleaning sewers or septic tanks from 1993 onwards.

On Friday, October 20, the court said that the government must ensure that right to equality is implemented and untouchability as well as child labour are abolished, reported Live Law.

“Union and States are duty bound to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging is completely eradicated,” the court said. “Each of us owes to this large segment of the population, who have remained unseen, unheard and muted, in bondage systematically trapped in inhuman conditions.”

The Supreme Court also said that under the 2013 law, the Centre and state governments are obliged to implement their provisions in the letter and spirit. The court has listed the hearing in the matter on February 1.

Centre’s data on sewer deaths

In July 2021, in a written response submitted to the Rajya Sabha, Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry admits that the inhuman practice of manual scavenging is still prevalent in India with over 60,000 manual scavengers identified across the country but insisted that ‘no one had died due to this practice’. At the time, Ramdas Athawale, the Social Justice and Empowerment Minister has informed the Rajya Sabha through his written answer on July 28, 2021, that “no deaths pertaining to manual scavenging has been reported in the last five years.” Interestingly, this answer by Ramesh Athawale had in July that year contradicted his own written reply dated February 2, 2021, where he had stated that the reported number of deaths stood at 340 across 19 States, with Uttar Pradesh topping the list at 52 deaths, as reported previously by SabrangIndia!

In March 2023, however, the Union government said that 1,035 persons have died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks across India since 1993. In addition, of the 616 cases registered under the Manual Scavenging Act against contractors for not providing safety gear to sanitation workers, only one has ended up in conviction.

The Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers was intended to deal with the problem by identifying all manual scavengers in the country and providing them with means to employ safer practices or give them alternative livelihoods. However, the budgetary allocation towards it has seen a significant decline since 2019.

In the earlier budget for 2019-’20, the Centre had allocated Rs 110 crore for the scheme, but the revised estimate stood at Rs 99.93 crore. While the 2020-’21 Budget estimate was Rs 110 crore, the revised estimate came down to Rs 30 crore. For the 2021-’22 Budget, the government had initially allocated Rs 100 crore, but the revised estimate dropped to Rs 43.31 crore.

Sabrangindia has consistently reported on the callousness of governments and contractors in not adhering to provisions of the law. Lives of manual scavengers, derided and living on the fringes of society have been also covered extensively.

Related:

Manual Scavenging continues unabated, Indian Govts turns a deaf ear to acknowledge this systemic, extreme violence

Manual Scavengers: 340 deaths, yet Centre has no intention to make stricter laws!

Karnataka: Two manual scavengers choke to death in a manhole

Manual Scavengers Act: Karnataka HC issues directions over implementation

Govt aims to eliminate manual scavenging by August 2021

The post Eradicate manual scavenging completely says SC increasing compensation to families of workers who die at work to Rs 30 lakh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the compensation amount should be recovered from the salaries of sub-inspectors Rajeev Gautam and Shamim Khan, the two police officers who put the petitioner in the lock-up. The Court observed that police officers “cannot be law unto themselves and a meaningful message” must be sent out to the authorities.

This Court also commented stating that it is troubled at the way the citizens are being treated by the Police authorities who behave as if they are above the law, the Court said.

“The time spent in the lock-up by the petitioner, even for a short while, cannot absolve the police officers who have deprived the petitioners of his liberty without following the due procedure established by law… This Court is of the opinion that a meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves,” Justice Prasad underscored.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a man named Pankaj Kumar Sharma who was illegally detained at Delhi’s Badarpur Police Station on September 2, 2022, over a year ago.

According to the facts of the case, a woman was stabbed by a vegetable seller on September 22 at around 9 pm. The woman came to the petitioner’s shop and said that she had been injured. The petitioner called the police. However, when the police came to the spot, they picked up the petitioner and placed him in the lock-up with even registering a first information report (FIR).

During the course of the investigation, the Court was told that an inquiry was held against the officers and that a punishment of censure has been imposed on them. Justice Prasad considered the case and observed that even though it was for a short period of time, petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty, a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“This Court is deeply troubled by the fact that the petitioner was not even arrested. He was simply picked up from the spot, brought to the police station and placed inside the lock-up for no rhyme or reason. The highhanded way in which the Police authorities have acted throwing to winds the constitutional and fundamental rights of a citizen, is appalling. Court is troubled at the way the citizens are being treated by the Police authorities who behave as if they are above the law. A punishment of censure alone is not sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.” the Court further observed said. (Para 10)

Hence, clearly, the Court was also of the view that in this case, a punishment of censure is not enough because it is not likely to have any effect on the career of the police officers and is therefore is not a sufficient deterrent.

Reiterating the power of constitutional courts in protecting fundamental freedoms, the Court stated, “The said principle is now well established that in cases where there can be no dispute of facts, the constitutional courts have the power to award compensation in case a person has been deprived of his life and liberty W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 9 of 9 without following the procedure established by law. (Para 13)

“The time spent in the lock-up by the Petitioner, even for a short while, cannot absolve the police officers who have deprived the Petitioners of his liberty without following the due procedure established by law. A punishment of censure which is not likely to have any effect on the career of the police officers will not be a sufficient deterrent to the officer. The censure should be of such nature that other officers too must not emulate such actions in future… In the facts of this case, even though the illegal detention of the Petitioner was only for about half an hour, this Court is inclined to grant compensation of ₹50,000 to the petitioner, which shall be recovered from the salaries of respondents No.4 and 5 [Sub-Inspectors Rajeev Gautam and Shamim Khan],” the Court ordered. (Para 14)

The Delhi HC relied on the epic judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in D K Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416, had directed the following requirements to be fulfilled in case of arrest.

Paragraph 35 of the said judgment (D.K. Basu) reads as under:-

“35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 4 of 9 arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 5 of 9 examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board. “

Critically, the Delhi HC emphasises the SC’s observations in Para 44 in D K Basu (supra) also observed as under (Para 11):-

“44. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.

The Delhi HC judgement also relies on the Nilabati Behera case [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : 1993 Cri LJ 2899] in which heirs of a victim of custodial torture were granted compensation.

46. In Nilabati Behera case [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : 1993 Cri LJ 2899] , it was held: (SCC pp. 767-68, para 32) “

Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 7 of 9 of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party.

The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve „new tools‟ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law.

While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the title „Freedom under the Law‟ Lord Denning in his own style warned: „No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do.

But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age.

They must be replaced by new and up-to-date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence…. This is not the task of Parliament … the courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest.

Properly exercised the new powers of the executive W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 8 of 9 lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in this country.‟ ”

Similarly, the present Delhi HC judgement, further relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orisa & Ors., 1993 (2) SCC 746, while dealing with the power of a constitutional court to award compensation rather than relegating such person to file a suit for recovery of damages, the Apex Court observed as under:- (Para 12 )

“22. The above discussion indicates the principle on which the court’s power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is exercised to award monetary compensation for contravention of a fundamental right. This was indicated in Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and certain further observations therein adverted to earlier, which may tend to minimise the effect of the principle indicated therein, do not really detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal [(1965) 1 SCR 375 : AIR 1965 SC 1039 : (1965) 2 Cri LJ 144] distinguished therefrom.

We have considered this question at some length in view of the doubt raised, at times, about the propriety of awarding compensation in such proceedings, instead of directing the claimant to resort to the ordinary process of recovery of damages by recourse to an action in tort. In the present case, on the finding reached, it is a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son.”

Advocate Dhruv Gupta appeared for the Pankaj Kumar Sharma. Additional Standing Counsel Hetu Arora Sethi and Advocate Arjun Basra appeared for the State.

The entire judgement of the Delhi high court may be read here:

Related:

Jharkhand HC awards compensation for illegal detention, but not custodial death

HRDA demands justice for Baldev Murmu’s illegal detention

Bom HC awards compensation to victims of illegal detention

The post Police to pay: Delhi HC penalises two police officers (Rs 50k) for illegally detaining man for half an hour appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Despite the mandate of the High Court, it appears that neither the acquiring authority, nor the State Government is being sensitised. If insensitivity is to be blinked at by this court, we are afraid that the rule of law will not prevail and there would not only be a travesty of justice, but would result in miscarriage of justice,” the court observed.

This significant legal development came from the High Court that was hearing a cluster of petitions lodged by farmers whose lands had been acquired by the State Government. 

Aggrieved farmers had contended that despite a 2019 order issued by the esteemed Lok Adalat, the government had failed to provide them with the rightful compensation. According to the Government Resolution (GR), the compensation was to be disbursed within 180 days of the settlement award, which had not been honoured this ruling, the High Court expressed profound dismay at the acquiring authorities and revenue officials for callously disregarding the sanctity of the Lok Adalat awards and the severe financial adversities faced by the petitioner farmers. The court also made poignant remarks, emphasising that these cases were glaring illustrations of the authorities showing scant regard for the Lok Adalat awards, issued as far back as December 17, 2019.The division bench documented how, when a farmer’s fundamental right to cultivate his land, an integral part of the right to livelihood, is taken away, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to duly compensate the affected individual.

Right to property is not only a Constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right and human rights are considered to be in the realm of individual rights which are gaining an even greater multifaceted dimension and, therefore, in case the person aggrieved is deprived of the land without making the payment of compensation as determined by the Collector/Court, it would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-social activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill treatment,” 

Moreover, the learned bench astutely observed that the entitlement to compensation for the farmers is a sacrosanct legal right, and for those possessing vested legal rights, the pursuit of justice becomes an inherent facet. Farmers with justifiable claims ought not to implore for justice but rather assert their right to demand it unequivocally. In the event of failure to disburse such payments within the stipulated timeframe, there shall legally arise an interest component, which the responsible officers must bear as a penalty for the delay.

Furthermore, the division bench issued a clear directive to both the government and acquiring authorities, compelling them to ensure timely disbursal of awarded amounts to farmers who have entered into Lok Adalat settlements from the year 2017 onwards, and who have no prior pending cases. The prescribed timeframe for such settlement mandates completion within 90 days from the date of this pivotal judgment.

Based on the findings from the NSSO 59th round ‘Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers’, the economic situation of Indian farmers remains a matter of grave concern. The survey reveals that an average Indian farmer’s monthly earnings stand at Rs 6,426, while their expenditure amounts to Rs 6,223. This indicates a meagre surplus, leaving little room for financial stability or savings.

Disturbingly, a striking level of income inequality plagues the agricultural sector. Merely 15 percent of farmers manage to secure a whopping 91 percent of the total agricultural income. 

This stark contrast between the few privileged and the majority facing financial hardships highlights the overwhelming disparity present within the farming community. An even more distressing aspect is the precarious profitability of farming activities. Specifically, farmers earn a mere Rs 7,639 from a hectare of wheat cultivation, whereas the production cost to achieve this yield amounts to a staggering Rs 32,644. Such a substantial gap between income and expenses poses a severe threat to the livelihoods of countless farmers who struggle to make ends meet. In essence, these findings shed light on the grim economic realities faced by Indian farmers, characterised by slim margins, inequality in income distribution, and the struggle to generate profitable returns from their hard work and investments in agricultural activities. Urgent attention and support are required to uplift the agricultural community and ensure a sustainable and equitable future for these essential contributors to the nation’s prosperity. 

Since 2017, over 800 farmers impacted by the upcoming Jewar airport in Gautam Buddha Nagar have been protesting against land loss, livelihood issues, and insufficient compensation. Their main grievance stems from a government notification that reclassifies the proposed site from rural to urban, halving the compensation amount legally entitled to them under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013. The Act stipulates two times the market rate for urban land and four times the market rate for rural land. 

On March 16, 2018, Farmers Protested against Low Compensation for NTPC Plant in MP and Demanded Jobs. 

Led by the All-India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), farmers in Greater Noida staged a protest at the Greater Noida Development Authority headquarters, protesting the government’s failure to fulfil a promise made 13 years ago. The promise was to compensate them for the lands that were taken away by the government. Thousands of farmers participated in the sprawling rally around the headquarters. On April 25, 2018 Over 5,000 farmers in Gujarat, India, had expressed their willingness to die rather than part with their land, as disputes over land acquisition intensify in the country. In Bhavnagar district, they demanded the return of 2,000 hectares of land acquired by a power utility over two decades ago, which remains unused. They have communicated this plea to state officials and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

On May 18, 2023, hundreds of activists and farmers belonging to the farmers’ organisation, Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KMC), took a standby squatting on a railway track and obstructing rail traffic at Devidaspura village. Their protest was driven by the claim of receiving inadequate compensation for the land acquired for the Bharat Mala project.

Some of the legal developments through case laws illuminated these endeavours and deepen jurisprudence:  

In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chennai (2005) 7 SCC 627, the court held that the State could acquire private property under its power of eminent domain, but it must be for a public purpose, and the affected person must receive reasonable compensation as mandated under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0033/1995, the court clarified that Article 300-A limits the State’s power to deprive a person of their property, ensuring no deprivation without proper legal authority.

In the ruling, Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P (2011) 9 SCC 354, the constitutional courts recognised the right to property as a fundamental human right, emphasizing that the State cannot claim adverse possession over citizens’ properties in its role as a welfare state.

In B.K. Ravichandra & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors SCC OnLine SC 950, the court reaffirmed that compensation must be paid, and the State or authorities cannot ignore this obligation. 

In the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Modan Singh FAO-756-2022 (O&M), the Land Acquisition Act 2013 was made applicable. (Here, compensation deposited before December 31, 2014, was not paid to the majority of farmers: Punjab & Haryana HC. 

In the case of GNIDA vs. Devendra SLP (C) No. 16366 of 2011, the government’s land acquisition order was invalidated due to its arbitrary exercise of power.

Constitutional Principles 

A welfare state must not, under the pretext of industrial development, forcibly displace and violate the fundamental, constitutional, and human rights of its citizens. A welfare state, governed by the rule of law, cannot assume a status beyond what is granted by the Constitution. Moreover, the authorities responsible for such actions are not only obligated to provide adequate compensation but also have a legal duty to rehabilitate the affected individuals.

Failure to fulfil these obligations would amount to compelling the uprooted individuals to become wanderers or engage in activities against their own nation, as such feelings may arise due to their mistreatment without any lawful procedure. The court must recognize that a welfare state or its agencies enriching themselves at the expense of impoverished farmers is impermissible, especially when endorsed by the state itself.

To further read the judgement 

(The author is an intern with the Citizens for Justice and Peace, ww.cjp.org.in)

References

https://www.deshabhimani.com/english/news/national/no-compensation-for-lands-taken-away-farmers-break-into-protest-in-greater-noida/8275

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/fair-compensation-for-land-acquired-by-govt-is-farmers-human-right-sc/articleshow/50050793.cms

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-grants-relief-to-farmers-whose-land-was-acquired-for-highway-496491

Related:

Protesting farmers block the highway to Delhi in Haryana’s Kurukshetra

25,000 farmers march to Palghar district collectorate, ensure demands are met: AILS

Varanasi: Land Survey Bid Triggers Clashes, Several Injured, 11 Farmers Arrested

The post Recognising fair compensation for farmers land is a non-negotiable human right: Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A petition was filed by the deceased victim’s wife[1], Babita praying for an investigation into her husband’s death by the CBI as well as compensation for herself and her children to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs.

According to Babita Devi’s advocate Shadab Ansari, Umesh Singh was arrested in June 2015 by Pawan Singh, the munshi of the Ghanudih police outpost, at the command of Harinarayan Ram, the officer-in-charge of the Ghanudih Outpost under the Tisra police station in the Jharia block of the Dhanbad district.

Umesh Singh was charged in a case involving protests over the frequent mine blasting that had damaged his home and other structures nearby. The court was informed that Umesh Singh’s body was found nearby Ghanuadih Joria after his family frantically sought him out when he failed to return home the following morning. His body had sustained severe injuries, and he was just wearing underpants, the court was informed. It was also claimed that, as the family confirmed in a video recording, the deceased’s shirt was discovered in the lockup of the police station. Obviously, it appears that this was a case of custodial torture.

At the Jharia police station, Babita Devi filed a FIR against Harinarayan Ram, Pawan Singh, Satendra Kumar, and unnamed police officers; however, the court was informed that the investigating officer failed to record the petitioners’ testimony for more than a year and a half.

Justice delayed is justice denied?

The court in the judgement, acknowledged that fatalities in custody constitute a breach of human rights. It acknowledged that the deceased’s passing away while under the custody of the police constituted a custodial death. This implies that the deceased’s death was caused by the police’s conduct or negligence, which violates his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) judicial investigation and its conclusions were taken into account by the court. According to the CJM’s inquiry report, the deceased was discovered dead while under police custody, substantiating the accusation of a death in custody. This report was performed by a judicial body and included evidence to support the claims, thus the court gave it considerable weight.

The court also recognised the significance of awarding damages in situations involving custodial deaths. It made reference to a plan outlining the process for allocating compensation in such circumstances. The court emphasised that compensation becomes necessary in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution when basic rights are violated. This demonstrates the court’s dedication to making sure the victims or their families receive fair compensation for having their rights violated. The court therefore, awarded the family of the victim 5,00,000 rupees.

The court ensured through its judgement that the situation qualifies for a public remedy. This refers to circumstances where the court utilizes its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant appropriate remedies in situations that affect the public more broadly. The court asserted its jurisdiction and authority to pass orders that address the violation of human rights, grant compensation, and ensure accountability in the interest of justice.

The police officers accountable for the death in custody must now face departmental charges, per the court’s directive. Internal disciplinary actions taken by the police department to hold personnel accountable for their conduct or carelessness are known as departmental proceedings. The court emphasized the distinction and independence between criminal and disciplinary proceedings. According to the evidence and circumstances surrounding the custodial death, it was indicated that departmental processes should be started, and if proven guilty, action should be taken against the errant officials. Unfortunately, as is want in such cases, no criminal charges for loss of life have been directed by the High Court.

If the errant police officials are proven guilty, the court permitted the State to reclaim the awarded compensation amount from them. This implies that the State has the power to collect the compensation sum from the police officials if the departmental or criminal processes show their liability. This clause makes sure that individuals accountable for the custodial death bear the financial burden of compensation rather than the State or taxpayers.

Human rights recognition and protection are at the centre of this lawsuit. The intrinsic rights of every person to life, liberty, and dignity are unquestionably recognised by the court. It emphasises how gravely these fundamental rights are violated when people die while they are being held captive. The case draws attention to this problem and highlights the pressing need to protect human rights, especially in the context of interactions between law enforcement and people in detention.

The court’s order to begin departmental procedures against the police officers accountable for the prisoner’s death is a crucial element of this case. This emphasises the urgent requirement to make law enforcement personnel responsible for their acts. By doing this, the court emphasises the idea that no one is above the law, regardless of their status. This ruling sends a strong message that misbehaviour or negligence that results in custodial deaths won’t be allowed and that those accountable must suffer the necessary repercussions.

The pursuit of justice and the defence of human rights continue to be hampered by the distressing reality of custodial deaths, which occurs throughout societies all over the world. Even if the case in question is a recent one, it is important to recognise the vast number of other, very similar cases that have troubled the Indian court system. These examples draw attention to the protracted delays in delivering justice, which cause the relatives of the deceased great damage.

The grief endured by the families left behind is made worse by how long it takes to resolve cases of custodial death. Their anguish is exacerbated, their grief is extended, and their trust in the judicial system is damaged by the drawn-out legal proceedings. It is impossible to emphasise the emotional, psychological, and financial toll that these families have experienced. As time stretches on, their struggle for closure and accountability becomes an enduring battle. 

Other recent custodial death cases

According to data from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Gujarat has topped the list of Indian states with the most number of custodial deaths during the past five years. According to the official data, Gujarat reported 80 incarceration fatalities during this time, with the numbers rising yearly. Only in 2021–2022 did the state record 24 deaths while in custody.[2]

According to information submitted in the Rajya Sabha by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), there has been a nationwide increase in the number of deaths while under the custody of the police of over 60% over the past three years and 75% over the past two years.

The data also showed that in Maharashtra, the number of such cases increased by a startling ten times, in Kerala and Bihar, by three times, and in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka, by two times.[3]

The terrible deaths of a father and son duo while they were being held in jail in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin district outraged the country and attracted attention from around the world. The event started when J. Bennix, the proprietor of a small mobile phone store, received a warning from the police for keeping his store open past the curfew set in place because of the COVID-19 outbreak. Bennix allegedly got into a fight with the police, which resulted in the arrest and detention of his father P. Jayaraj.

According to eyewitnesses, Bennix was severely beaten by the police in front of his friends, who were present when the incident occurred. Both the father and the child were covered in blood due to the severity of the assault. According to family members, Bennix endured additional torture, including the insertion of a baton into his anus, which caused uncontrollable bleeding. Jayaraj received numerous shoe-toe kicks to the chest. They were hauled to a magistrate without receiving medical care despite their wounds. The pair was booked into a nearby sub-jail after being accused of several crimes under the Indian Penal Code. However, as their health declined, they were only sent to the hospital after it was already too late.[4]

Police nabbed two people by the names of Vignesh and Suresh on April 18, 2022, while conducting a vehicle check. They were found to be in possession of marijuana and liquor bottles by the police. Doctors declared Vignesh dead the following day, which led to questions regarding the circumstances of his passing. The police said that Vignesh had died due to a seizure, however on investigation it was found that he was mercilessly beaten to death. Six police officers implicated in the death in custody were detained after a comprehensive investigation.

The District Magistrate remanded the accused officials to judicial prison. They were accused of violating both the SC/ST Atrocities Act and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with murder. An autopsy report that revealed numerous injuries and fractures on the body of the 25-year-old victim served as the foundation for the police officials’ arrest. Numerous bruises, especially on the victim’s head, along with deep muscle injuries, swelling, contusions, and wounds on the arms were noted in the report.

This case emphasises the tragic custodial death incident and the subsequent steps taken to conduct an investigation and prosecute those involved. The degree of the victim’s injuries were determined by the autopsy report, which led to questions about police brutality and the demand for accountability in law enforcement. A step has been taken towards addressing the problem and ensuring the victim receives justice with the arrest and charge of the involved police officers.[5]

The list of these cases just go on and on. The NHRC’s figures show a worrying trend of rising deaths while in custody. This information is concerning because Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees everyone the fundamental right to life. The severity of the problem is increased when a law enforcement agency neglects its responsibility to protect life. According to the NCRB’s 2018 prison report, 149 deaths in custody were ascribed to non-natural causes, and some deaths were classified as unknown as a result of insufficient reporting from some states. Suicides made up a sizable fraction of these fatalities, raising concerns regarding whether the prisoners were forced to commit suicide or did so voluntarily to escape additional abuse and torture.

Prisoners’ psychological health is frequently ignored, and there is insufficient psychiatric treatment available to help them deal with the stress and trauma they experience. The poor circumstances inside prisons only make the problem worse. The medical care provided to convicts falls short of acceptable standards, and violent confrontations between prisoners occur often and frequently result in death. Inmates’ physical suffering exacerbates their emotional suffering, which has a detrimental effect on their wellbeing. To defend the fundamental human right to life, state authorities should make sure that these necessities are met.

A person who has been detained shall only be subjected to a reasonable degree of force and should not be restrained longer than is necessary to prevent escape, according to Section 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, police officers routinely violate these standards and use excessive force. Since the police are frequently in charge of the investigation in situations involving custodial deaths, they have the potential to tamper with the evidence and cover up such incidents on paper.

The absence of systemic accountability and transparency is one of the main causes of police brutality and deaths in custody. Due to a lack of adequate systems for investigation, monitoring, and holding the accountable, instances of police misconduct and abuse frequently go unreported and unpunished. Such occurrences are continually occurring because of a culture of impunity fueled by ineffective oversight and poor application of the laws that are in place.

The employment of coercive techniques during interrogations is another element. Sometimes, the police violate the rights of the accused and the norms of due process by using torture and other unlawful approaches to coerce information or confessions. In addition to violating human rights, this compromises the fairness of the criminal justice system. Article 20(3) states that no one may be forced to testify against themselves. It is an extremely important law since it prevents the accused from confessing when they are forced or tortured into doing so. Police are allowed to question suspects under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but if they employ pressure to extract information from a suspect during an investigation, it is considered compelled testimony. Forced testimony is not taken into consideration since it violates Article 20(3).

Article 21 is the fundamental right to life enshrined upon us by the Constitution of India, the situation of the prisons and police brutality is taking away this fundamental right and then awarding petty amounts in the form of compensation, more than half of these custodial deaths are not even reported as they are committed by law enforcement officials, this gives them an easy way out, as they can tamper with the evidence.

The rise in custodial deaths can be partly ascribed to the lack of strict punishments meted out to those involved in the past and the absence of well-defined precedents. To maintain accountability and stop law enforcement officials from abusing their authority, a clear precedent must be set.

What the constitutional courts of India have to say about Custodial deaths and compensation in such cases-

In the landmark case of DK Basu v. Union of India[6] it was held that the custodial death of a person breaches their fundamental rights and is unlawful. When a right is protected by the State, recourse must be sought against the State if the constitutional requirement established has not been met. According to legal interpretations, Article 21 ensures the right to life, personal liberty, and the ability to live in dignity. As a result, it also contains a protection against abuse by the State or its agents, such as torture.

Article 22 guarantees protection from arrest and detention. It states that no one who has been arrested may be held in jail without knowing the reason(s) for their arrest and that they are not to be denied the opportunity to speak with and be represented by a lawyer of their choosing. Article 20 (3) provides that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself. The guidelines issued by the court were as follows-

1. Police personnel must wear visible identification and maintain a register of personnel involved in the arrest and interrogation process.
2. A memorandum of arrest should be prepared at the time of arrest, witnessed by a family member or respectable person, and signed by the detainee, including the time and date of the arrest.
3. The arrested person has the right to inform a friend, relative, or someone interested in their well-being about the arrest.
4. The police must notify the detainee’s next friend or relative outside the district or city about the time, place of detention, and custody.
5. The arrested person must be informed of their right to have someone notified about their arrest or detention.
6. The arrest details, including the name of the informed next friend and custody details, must be recorded in the Case Diary at the place of detention.
7. A medical examination should be conducted at the time of arrest, recording any injuries, and an inspection memo must be signed by both the detainee and arresting officer.
8. The detainee must undergo a medical examination every 48 hours by a trained physician.
9. Copies of all relevant documents, including the arrest memo, must be sent to the Magistrate for registration.
10. The detainee may be allowed to meet their attorney during the interrogation but not throughout.
11. Police Control Rooms should be established for communication of arrest and custody information within 12 hours after the arrest.

The court also acknowledged that there is a need for compensation when someone’s fundamental rights have been violated.

Every time a person is injured and hurt, the law mandates that they have a way to seek redress in accordance with the idea of Ubi jus, ibi remedium, which translates to there is no wrong without a remedy. A mere declaration of invalidity or acknowledgement of custodial brutality or death is insufficient to offer a meaningful remedy when someone’s fundamental right to life has been violated. There must be other actions taken.

Although the Indian Constitution does not specifically mention compensation for violations of the fundamental right to life, the Supreme Court has established the right to compensation through its judicial rulings. This indicates that the court has acknowledged that the injured person is entitled to receive compensation as a kind of remedy in situations where there is a proven unconstitutional impairment of personal liberty or life.

In the case of Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P[7] the court recognised that torture carried out by law enforcement officers is a serious offence that threatens civilised society by undermining citizens’ basic rights and human dignity. It promotes the notion among police that they may avoid responsibility because there isn’t any concrete proof. Direct evidence of police involvement in incidents of police torture or deaths in custody is frequently lacking because police officers frequently choose to keep quiet or tell lies to shield their coworkers. When prosecuting agencies themselves are involved, the prosecution’s stringent adherence to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt can occasionally result in a miscarriage of justice.

If action is not taken to solve this problem, the judiciary and the criminal justice system may become less trustworthy in the eyes of the general populace, which will erode trust in the system. Because there is generally little direct proof or documentation of the acts, conviction rates for crimes involving police atrocities are sometimes low.

The Law Commission has suggested changes to the Indian Evidence Act that would transfer the burden of proof in these situations to the police officers. To reduce custody crimes, assure responsibility, and provide victims justice, the executive branch, legislature, and courts must act decisively. To ensure the truth is revealed and those responsible are held accountable, courts handling custodial crime cases should use a pragmatic and considerate approach rather than a restricted technical one.

This ruling highlights the necessity of broad structural changes, a shift in mindset, and the pursuit of justice and the truth in situations of custodial offences.

In the case of Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re[8] it was held that-

1. Even if a person is found not guilty after a trial, they are still entitled to compensation if they were unlawfully held. Compensation can be ordered to be given to the missing person’s relatives in circumstances of disappearances while they are in jail.
2. The right to compensation has been developed by the courts in situations of unconstitutional impairment of life or personal liberty, notwithstanding the Constitution’s lack of an explicit provision for it.
3. The State is held vicariously accountable for public employees’ violations of the fundamental right to life, and monetary compensation is a reasonable and practical remedy.
4. Sovereign immunity is not an acceptable defence, and the strict liability principle is in effect. The State is obligated to make the payment and may pursue restitution against the perpetrator.
5. The precise facts of each case will determine the amount of compensation given. The amount of compensation isn’t determined by a set formula.
6. Traditional remedies are not replaced by the relief granted by the court to address the violation of fundamental rights; rather, it supplements them. Any damages granted in a civil lawsuit may be offset against the compensation determined by the court and paid by the State.

However, in the same case the court has recognised that Custodial death is seen as a crime, therefore providing financial relief to the deceased person’s heirs is not the sole suitable relief.

There is a requirement for a sympathetic review of every prison. Violence against prisoners is a serious issue in civilised societies. Custodial violence in any form is repugnant and is condemned by all facets of society. People in positions of power need to be especially sensitive to those who are being held in captivity. Even though the results may have been inconsistent, the constitutional courts have constantly highlighted this issue.

The case of Prabhavathiamma v. the State of Kerala and others [9] involved the passing away of a scrap metal worker who was being held in detention in Thiruvananthapuram. The CBI Court subsequently gave the two accused service personnel the death penalty after a decade-long trial in the case. Justice Nazar stated that the police officers violently murdered the victim and damaged the police institution’s credibility.

The judge also ruled that pardoning such severe crimes was not an option since doing so would undermine public safety and encourage police to utilise their authority in arbitrary ways. Death sentences are a type of punishment that are rarely given, however in this case, the Bench made its decision based on the seriousness of the offence committed.

In conclusion, the issue of custodial deaths in India is a serious human rights violation and a cause for grave concern. The examples discussed here focus light on the terrible reality of custodial deaths and the pressing need for institutional reforms, justice, and accountability.

Custodial deaths are have been recognised by India’s constitutional courts as being illegal and a violation of fundamental rights. As a remedy to redress these transgressions, they have emphasised the significance of providing compensation to victims or their relatives. In order to prevent police brutality and guarantee the protection of those in detention, the courts have also emphasised the need for structural improvements, improved oversight, and a mental shift.

These decisions highlight the value of in-depth investigations, departmental actions against erring police officers, and a strong precedence to prevent such tragedies. Even in the absence of a specific constitutional provision, the courts have emphasised the State’s vicarious accountability and need to pay damages.

Police wrongdoing and the rising incidence of deaths while in custody call for immediate reform. To prevent mistreatment and torture while in custody, adequate protections must be put in place, such as identification of police officers, accurate record-keeping, medical examinations, and communication with family members. A culture of impunity must be eradicated, and those responsible must receive severe punishment.

Systematic improvements, such as improved training for law enforcement authorities, increased transparency, and the development of independent supervision mechanisms, are required to truly guarantee the fundamental right to life and dignity. Building a criminal justice system that upholds the values of justice, accountability, and respect for human rights should be the objective.

In the end, the judicial, executive, and legislative departments of the government must work together to pursue justice in situations of custodial deaths. India can safeguard the protection of its citizens’ rights and restore faith in the legal system by cooperating to address this pressing issue.

All the judgements cited may be read here:

1. Babita Devi and Ors Versus The State of Jharkhand
2. Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 6 SCC 642
3. Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631
4. Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658
5. J. Prabhavathiamma v. the State of Kerala and others, 2008 Cri LJ 455

(The author is an intern with Citizen for Justice and Peace, cjp.org.in)

[1] Babita Devi and Ors Versus The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and Ors, W.P.(Cr.) No. 48 of 2017

[2] https://sabrangindia.in/article/custodial-deaths-highest-gujarat-over-5-years-jails-overcrowded/

[3] https://thewire.in/rights/india-custodial-deaths-data-rajya-sabha-2023

[4] https://thewire.in/rights/jayaraj-bennix-custodial-deaths-impunity

[5] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/vignesh-custodial-death-cb-cid-arrests-2-cops-murder-charges-1946505-2022-05-07

[6] Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 6 SCC 642

[7] Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631

[8] Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658

[9] J. Prabhavathiamma v. the State of Kerala and others, 2008 Cri LJ 455

Related:

Custodial deaths highest in Gujarat over 5 years; jails overcrowded

Madras HC orders Judicial Magistrate to conduct inquiry into alleged custodial deaths in Tuticorin

UP: Maximum prison CCTVs, yet maximum custodial deaths?

Custodial torture victims are threatened, says People’s Watch: Tamil Nadu

Hyderabad: Muslim man allegedly subjected to custodial torture on “suspicion of theft” for 5 days, dies in hospital

The post Death behind bars: Justice through the Indian Courts as cases spiral appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in July.

Advocates Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Saptarshi Banerjee, Purbayan Chakraborty, and Kuntal Banerjee represented the petitioners in the case.

Background

The petition has been filed by Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, representing the MGNREGA workers seeking compensation. They have sought release of payments of Rs. 2,76,484.47 lakh along with statutory interest @ 0.05% of the unpaid wages per day of delay beyond the sixteenth day of closure of muster roll. They have not received their wages since December 2021. They also sought direction from the court to the state government to implement MGNREGA upon due sanction of funds.

MGNREGA is a social security and employment generation program initiated in 2006, and was enacted to provide for enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteered to do unskilled manual work.

The dispute arose when the central government of India stopped releasing funds for the MGNREGA scheme by order dated March 9, 2022, instructing the state government of West Bengal to pay the wages from its own resources until a satisfactory Action Taken Report (ATR) was submitted. As a result, daily-wage workers claimed that they had not received their wages since December 2021, amounting to a total of Rs. 2,76,484.47 lakh in unpaid wages over an 18-month period.

The state government submitted a new ATR on February 2, 2023, and requested the revocation of the March 2022 order. The court directed the central government to respond to the new ATR to ensure that workers who had satisfactorily completed their work under the MGNREGA scheme are entitled to receive their wages according to the principles of the Act. The court emphasized that the scheme should not be used to the detriment of workers and called for the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism at the block and district levels.

The court also considered the contention of the state government that the directions given by the central government were beyond the provisions of the MGNREGA.

In December last year the civil rights network NREGA Sangarsh Morcha, in alliance with the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS), held Black Day on December 27, with workers holding black flag demonstrations, thaala bajao, road blockade and public meetings marking one year of the Government of India withholding the release of over Rs 7,500 crore MGNREGA funds to West Bengal.  Out of this amount, the pending wages are touching a staggering figure of Rs. 2,744 crore. According to the report called Status of MGNREGA Employment & Wages in West Bengal FY (April to December 2022-23), there is around Rs  3,891 crores of perceived loss in NREGA wages from pre-Covid years (average of 2018-19 and 2019-20) and Rs 6046 crores in comparison to post-Covid years (average of 2020-21 and 2021-22)

The court’s directions

The court has directed the Central government to respond by specifically stating as to what is the decision taken on the State’s ATR.

The court held that, “it should be the endeavour of all the concerned authorities to ensure that the benefits under the Act of 2005 as well as the schemes, which have been formulated under the Act of 2005 are implemented.” The court added that if the Central government believed there has been misappropriation of funds, “the endeavour of the authority should be to separate the chaff from the grains.”

“If genuine persons have offered themselves for employment under the provisions of the Act of 2005 and they have satisfactorily completed the work, then it goes without saying that those employees and workmen are entitled for disbursement of wages in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder,” the court said (para 11)

“Therefore, the inquiry to be conducted has to proceed in an appropriate manner so that the persons, who have actually worked are not denied the wages for the labour, which they have contributed,” the court added. (Para 12)

The court has sought precise affidavits from central and state governments by June 20 and replies by June 27.

Further, the court has also directed the state government to state in its affidavit whether it has complied with the mandate under section 19 of the Act whereby it is required to set up grievance redressal mechanisms at block level and the district level for dealing with any complaint by any person in respect of implementation of the scheme and whether any procedure has been laid down for disposal of such complaint.

The order may be read here:

Related:

West Bengal farm workers protest Centre withholding Rs 7,500 crore MGNREGA budget

With Demand for MGNREGA Work Increasing in Sept 2022, Activists Warn About Rural Distress

‘Grossly inadequate’: NREGA allocation 0.29% of GDP, World Bank recommended 1.6%

MGNREGA ‘Under Attack’? Rural Workers Demand Increased Budgetary Allocations

The post Calcutta HC: Even if MGNREGA funds misappropriated, genuine workers need to be compensated appeared first on SabrangIndia.