PETITIONER:
PEOPLES' UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/12/1986
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 355 1987 SCR (1) 631
1987 SCC (1) 265 JT 1987 (1) 18
1986 SCALE (2)1093
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 32--Police
firing--Some persons killed and several others
injured--Payment of compensation-Necessity for.
Public Interest Litigation--Police firing--Some persons
dying and several others injured--Payment of
compensation--Necessity of.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner-an organisation, said to be committed to
the upholding of fundamental rights of citizens, filed an
application under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging
that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 deci-
mals of low lying land at Arwal between members of a rich
Rajak family on one side and members of nine poor families
on the other; and that on April 19, 1986, the members of one
community mostly belonging to the backward classes assembled
in the compound of Gandhi library at Arwal for holding a
peaceful meeting. At that time, the Superintendent of Police
reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering
and without any warning or provocation opened fire, as a
result of which several people were injured and at least 21
persons including children died. The police, it was also
alleged, started a false case implicating several innocent
people to cover up the aforesaid atrocities.
The petitioner in the writ petition prayed: (i) Full and
proper compensation should be awarded to the victims-rela-
tions of the dead and to those injured by the police firing;
(ii) A direction be given for withdrawal of the police case;
(iii) Direction for settlement of the land in dispute with
the nine poor families; and (iv) transfer of the writ peti-
tion pending in the Patna High Court to this Court for
hearing.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the State
Government held a judicial inquiry into the aforesaid inci-
dent by a Member of the Board of Revenue, and, awarded
compensation to the heirs and relations of a few of the dead
people to the tune of Rs. 10,000 each.
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court,
HELD: I. It would be appropriate that the matter is examined
by
632
the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to
produce material before the High Court on account of proxim-
ity; the High Court will be in a position to call for docu-
ments and if necessary, affidavits of parties concerned as
and when necessary while dealing with the matter. Without
notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the
parties in the writ petition before the High Court an order
of transfer may not be appropriate. It would not be proper
therefore to have the writ petition in the High Court trans-
ferred to this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty
to get itself impleaded before the High Court in the pending
writ petition or by filing an independent application.
[634F-H]
2. It is a normal feature that when such unfortunate
consequences emerge in police firing, the State comes for-
ward to give compensation. No justification has been indi-
cated as to why the said compensation has not been given in
every case of death or injury. Ordinarily in the case of
death compensation of Rs.20,000 is paid and there is no
reason as to why the quantum of compensation should be
limited to Rs.10,000. However, in the case of death the
liability of the wrong doer is not absolved when compensa-
tion of Rs.20,000 is paid. [635B-D]
3.(a) Without prejudice to any just claim for compensa-
tion that may be advanced by the relations of the victims
who have died or by the injured persons themselves, for
every case of death compensation of Rs.20,000 and for every
injured person compensation of Rs.5,000 shall be paid. Where
some compensation has already been paid, the same may be
adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid. [635D-
F]
(b) In case the petitioner presses for disclosure of the
report submitted by the Member, Board of Revenue, the High
Court may examine the question as to whether the report will
be made public and in the event of privilege being claimed
the question of privilege will also be examined by the High
Court. [635F-G]
(c) The investigation of the pending police case shall
be completed within three months. In case charge sheet is
submitted, it would be open to the petitioner or any other
aggrieved party to challenge the maintainability of the
charges in accordance with law. [636B]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 369 of 1986.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
633
Govind Mukhoty, Ms. Nandita Haksar and L.R. Singh for
the Petitioners.
D. Goburdhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Peoples’ Union for Democratic
Rights, an organisation said to be committed to the uphold-
ing. of fundamental rights of citizens has filed this appli-
cation under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is alleged
that on 19th April, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and
landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had
collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound
of Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the District of
Gaya in the State of Bihar. Without any previous warning by
the police or any provocation on the part of the people who
had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, Respondent
No. 3 herein, reached the spot with police force, surrounded
the gathering and opened fire as a result which several
people were injured and at least 21 persons including chil-
dren died. The petitioner alleged that separate unofficial
inquiries have been held into the atrocity and the reports
indicated that the number of deaths was much more than 21
and there was no justification for the firing. It appears
that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 deci-
mals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and to
such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side and
members of nine poor families on the other were parties.
Even though several people died and many more were injured
by the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to by the
police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police start-
ed a false case being Arwal P.S. Case No. 59 of 1986 and
therein implicated several innocent people including even
some of the people who had been killed in the firing. Three
specific prayers were made in the writ petition, namely:
(1) To issue an appropriate writ or make
an order or direction in the matter of payment
of full and proper compensation to the vic-
tims–relations of the dead and to the people
who were injured by police firing;
(2) For a direction to withdraw the
police case referred to above; and
(3) For a direction to Respondent No. 1
to settle the land in dispute with the nine
poor families.
634
During the hearing of the matter, an additional relief
was pressed, namely, this Court should give a direction for
instituting a judicial inquiry into the alleged atrocity.
It may be pointed out that during the pendency of this
writ application the State Government in response to the
growing demand for a judicial inquiry into the matter di-
rected an inquiry therein by Shri Vinod Kumar, Member, Board
of Revenue, Bihar. The said inquiry has been completed and
the report has already been furnished to the Government. On
the orders of the Court, the report has been produced before
this Court with a claim of privilege against disclosure
thereof.
The incident drew a lot of publicity and attention both
within the State as also outside. Coming to know about it,
Shri B.D. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes visited the locality and made a
report. At the instance of the petitioner, that document was
summoned and has been produced. In respect thereof the Union
Government has also claimed privilege.
In the affidavits in opposition filed on behalf of the
respondents the factual assertions raised in the writ peti-
tion have been disputed. It has also been brought to our
notice that a writ petition has been filed before the Patna
High Court prior to filing of this application under Article
32 before this Court and the writ petition in the High Court
is still pending. Once this fact was brought to our notice,
Mr. Mukhoty for the petitioners submitted that we should
direct transfer of the writ petition pending in the High
Court to this Court so that both the matters can be heard
together. We are of the view that it would be appropriate
that the matter is examined by the High Court. It would be
convenient to the parties to produce material before the
High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will be
in a position to call for documents and, if necessary,
affidavits of parties concerned as and when necessary while
dealing with the matter; and without notice and without
affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties in the
writ petition before the High Court an order of transfer may
not be appropriate. In these circumstances, we have not
thought it proper to have the writ petition in the High
Court transferred to this Court. On the other hand, we have
considered it expedient and proper in the interest of jus-
tice to dispose of some aspects of the matter now and leave
it open to the petitioner to canvass the other aspects by
getting itself impleaded before the High Court in the pend-
ing writ petition or by the filing of an independent appli-
cation.
635
There has been no dispute that as a result of the police
firing 21 people died and several others were injured. The
heirs and relations of a few of the dead people had been
compensated by the State to the tune of Rupees ten thousand
as found from the record. No justification has been indicat-
ed as to why the said compensation has not been given in
every case of death or injury. It is a normal feature of
which judicial notice can be taken that when such unfortu-
nate consequences emerge even in police firing, the State
comes forward to give compensation. Mr. Jaya Narayan, for
the State candidly stated before us that it is not the
intention of the State to deprive the relatives of some of
the victims who succumbed to the injuries sustained by
police firing from benefits of compensation. Ordinarily in
the case of death compensation of Rupees twenty thousand is
paid and we see no reason as to why the quantum of compensa-
tion should be limited to rupees ten thousand. We may not be
taken-to suggest that in the case of death the liability of
the wrong doer is absolved when compensation of Rupees
twenty thousand is paid. But as a working principle and for
convenience and with a view to rehabilitating the dependants
of the deceased such compensation is being paid. We direct
that:
(1) Without prejudice to any just claim
for compensation that may be advanced by the
relations of the victims who have died or by
the injured persons themselves, for every case
of death compensation of Rupees twenty thou-
sand and for every injured person compensation
of Rupees five thousand shall be paid. Where
some compensation has already been paid, the
same may be adjusted when the amount now
directed is being paid. These payments be made
within two months hence.
(2) In case the petitioner gets implead-
ed in the pending writ petition before the
High Court or filed a separate writ petition
and presses for disclosure of the Report of
Mr. Kumar, the High Court may examine the
question as to whether the report will be made
public and in the event of privilege being
claimed, the question of privilege will also
be examined by the High Court.
(3) We have read the report furnished by
the Assistant Commissioner of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and since the report is
not relevant to the point in issue, it is not
necessary to ask the High Court to call for
the Report. We direct that the report to be
returned
636
to the appropriate Ministry from where it has
been brought.
(4) The investigation of the pending
police case shall be completed within three
months from now. In case chargesheet is sub-
mitted, it would be open to the petitioner or
any other aggrieved party to challenge the
maintainability of the charges in accordance
with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
directions. The parties shall bear their own costs.
M.L.A. Petition dis-
posed of.
637