Mrs.R.Rajamani v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 22(1), 32, 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 1717. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in CoimbatoreBar Association and another -vs- State of T.N. and another reportedin 2008 Writ L.R.662 also dealt with a situation where the member of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the legal profession was assaulted by the police personnel that tooin a…
- Para 2020. Under these circumstances, the prayer of the petitionermerits acceptance. The writ petition will stand allowed and thefirst respondent State is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) to the petitioner within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.11.2008C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P.No.15229 of 1999 Mrs.R.Rajamani .. Petitioner-vs-1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
The Station House Officer, Pallavaram Police Station, Chennai-43. .. RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct therespondents to pay a just and reasonable sum as compensation to thehusband for the custodial death of her husband at the 4threspondent's Police Station on 23.6.1993 and award costs. For Petitioner : Mr. Vetriselvan for Mr.SathiachandranFor Respondents : Mr. A.Arumugam, Spl.G.PO R D E R The petitioner, who belongs to a dalit family and anunfortunate wife of one Rajaram, who was killed by the respondentpolice in the Pallavaram Police Station, is seeking for a just andreasonable compensation for the custodial death of her husband on23.6.1993. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. The grievance of the petitioner was that her husband wasworking as a Mason who was looking after her, her two sons(Vijayakumar and Janakiraman) and a daughter (Kanchana). Herhusband was taken to police custody on 20.6.1993 allegedly inconnection with selling of illicit liquor. The petitioner attemptedto meet her husband during the night of 20.6.1993 and during the dayof 21.6.1993 but was not fruitful. Later she had heard stories abouther husband being tortured to death by the police personnel attachedto Pallavaram Police Station at Chennai.3. The death of the petitioner's husband gave rise to acommotion in the area, which finally forced the State Government toorder an enquiry under 145 of the Police Standing Orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet, the third respondent herein. The third respondent in order to avoid the law and order problem, convinced the petitioner to take return of the dead body and got itburied at the instance of the revenue and police officials on23.6.1993. The third respondent conducted 145 PSO proceedings andexamined 14 witnesses including the doctor S.R.Sakunthala, AssistantProfessor of Medicine, Government Hospital, Madras. After recordingthe statements of those persons including the doctor, who hadconducted the post-mortem. 4. The third respondent reproduced the post-mortem opinion. Under the caption ''External Injuries", it was noted multipleabrasions of varying size over right iliac and right lunar area; multiple abrasions of varying size seen all over back of rightelbow. The opinion of the post-mortem doctor was also recorded underthe caption ''final opinion" which is as follows:-''The deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage due to injuries sustained".
The third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer evenquestioned the then trainee Additional Superintendent of PoliceThiru Sankar Jiwal, IPS and found out that his conduct was not aboveboard in this incident. In his final report he had observed asfollows:-''Further the Sub-Inspector Natarajan, Police ConstablesVijayaragavan (2352), Sekar (989), Gandhi (PC 2150),Venkatesan (818) noted with excess behaviour by detainingthe deceased unlawfully and torturing him. From theenquiries conducted in the above matter, I am to concludethat there was a lot of indiscipline and indifferentattitude of the police personnel working in this station. There were not checked properly and the erring officialallowed to continue on their own accord. Though the deathof Rajaram is an attempted suicide, the followingpersonnel are primarily responsible for this as thealleged crime by the deceased accused is too small. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Thiru Sankar Jiwal, IPS, ASP, Pallavaram2. Thiru Natarajan, SI, Pallavaram3. Thiru Vijayaraghavan, PC 23524. Thiru Gandhi, PC 21505. Thiru Sekar, PC 9896. Thiru Venkatesan, PC 818In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that this is afit case to reprimand the above police personnel for theirexcess behaviour which lead the accused to commit suicidewho was detained unlawfully".6. The said report was forwarded by the third respondentDistrict Collector, Kancheepuram District (the second respondentherein) with a covering letter dated 27.1.1994. The secondrespondent agreed with the conclusion reached by the RevenueDivisional Officer and in his report dated 02.3.1994, he opined asfollows:-''The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet has statedthat the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiru Natarajan,P.Cs.Vijayaraghavan (2352), Sekar (989), Gandhi (2150),Venkatesan (818) acted with excessive behaviour bydetaining the deceased unlawfully and torturing him.
TheRevenue Divisional Officer has concluded that there waslot of indiscipline and indifferent attitude of thepolice personnel working in Pallavaram Police Station andthey were not checked properly and the erring officialallowed to continue on their own accord. Though the deathof Rajaram is an alleged attempt to commit suicide, thefollowing Police Personnel are primarily responsible forthis as the alleged crime by the deceased-accused is toosmall.1. Thiru Sankar Jiwal, IPS, Additional Superintendent of Police, Pallavaram.2. Thiru Natarajan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pallavaram.3. Thiru Vijayaraghavan, P.C.23524. Thiru Gandhi, P.C.21505. Thiru Sekar, P.C. 9896. Thiru Venkatesan, P.C.818The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet has opinedthat this is a fit case to reprimand the above police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ personnel for their excess behaviour which led theaccused to commit suicide.I accept the findings of the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Saidapet and recommend that the above policepersonnel may be reprimanded for their excess behaviourwhich led the accused to commit suicide.
The report ofthe Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet with enquiryrecords is sent herewith. "7. He forwarded the report of the Revenue Divisional Officeralong with his opinion to the first respondent State with a coveringletter dated 02.3.1994. The State Government accepted the report ofrespondents 2 and 3 and issued an order in G.O.No.1604, Public (Lawand Order) Department, dated 18.12.1997. The order in Tamil iffreely translated, will read as follows:-''Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Law and Order I) Department G.O.Ms.No. 1604Dated 18. 12. 1997 Read: Letter M.1/ 8579/96 from the District CollectorKancheepuram dated 30.6.1997.Order: The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu regarding the enquiry conducted under thepolice standing order 145 regarding the dead body ofMr. Rajaram found near Pallavaram Police Station, Kancheepuram District on 23.6.1993 stated to have diedby falling into the well in the police station wasexamined by the government.2.
It was stated in the report that the deceasedRajaram was brought to the police station on 20.6.1993for having sold illicit liquor and he was kept underillegal custody till 26.6.1993. He was subjected totorture by the official of the police department. On23.6.1993, he was taken along with fellow prisoners forcompleting morning ablutions under the supervision ofpolice constables M/s.Gandhi, Sekar and Venkatesan. Suddenly Rajaram pushed the fellow prisoners and rantowards the well on the northern side of the policestation and jumped into the well. The constables in thepara duty brought Rajaram out of the well with the helpof Station stationery worker Gunasekaran. While he wasbeing taken to Chrompet Hospital he died on the way. But, however, in the enquiry done on the basis of post https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mortem report, it was informed that Rajaram died due topolice torture and the injuries found on his body.
Sincehis viscera was not filled up with water, the death didnot take place due to drowning.3. It was brought to light from the post mortemreport that the under trial prisoner Rajaram died whilein custody due to bodily injuries, shock and excessiveblood discharge and not due to drowning into the water. Further the then Sub-Inspector Tambaram Police StationV.Natarajan did not produce the accused/ deceasedRajaram though he was arrested on 20.6.1993 before thecourt according to the law. The Station House Officerdid not inform during the enquiry about the real causeof death and the Sub-Inspector suddenly released severalremand prisoners after sending Rajaram outside hospitalin a critical condition.4. Mr.Gandhi (2150) who was on Sentry duty on thatday failed to oversee the prisoners who were taken tocomplete their morning ablutions. The Enquiry Officerie. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu highlightedthe above reason and the Police Sub-Inspector Natarajanand Constable Gandhi (2150) are fully responsible forthe death of Rajaram.
Therefore, the government havedecided to take severe departmental action against thesetwo persons. Till such time the departmental proceedingsare over, the Government decided these two to be keptunder suspension for keeping Rajaram in illegalcustody for three days and also for torturing him andbeating him. For being responsible for the death of Rajaram, disciplinary action has to be taken against theduty Constables Vijayaraghavan (2352), Sekar (963),Venkatesan (818). (Paragraphs 5,6,7, are omitted from the governmentorder). sd/-Secretary to Government 8. Therefore, the stand of the respondent State is not that thedeceased Rajaram died due to drowning by jumping into the well andit was a suicide. But, on the contrary, he had died out of thethird degree torture inflicted on him by the police personnel onguard duty in the police station. The State Government found thatthe deceased Rajaram was illegally arrested and kept in the policelockout without any records and was detained beyond three dayscontrary to the constitutional mandate.
His death was not due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ drowning in the water but because of the torture and the bodilyinjuries suffered by the said deceased Rajaram.9. Even though action was directed to be taken against the Sub-Inspector of Police V.Natarajan and Gandhi, PC (2150) for beingresponsible for the death of Rajaram and also action to be initiatedagainst constables Vijayaraghavan (2252), Sekar (989) and Venkatesan(818) were subjected to departmental action by the Director Generalof Police by the Government Order, dated 18.12.1997, subsequently on28.3.2000 it was modified and for reasons best known to the firstrespondent State, it reduced the punishment given to the accusedpolice constables. It was stated that the Sub-Inspector of PoliceNatarajan will get two year increments cut with cumulative effectand other three policemen M/s.Venkatesan, Sekar and Gandhi will begiven one year increment cut with cumulative effect.
10. Whatever may be the motive of the State Government to goback on the punishment inflicted on the accused police. However, they have not cared to give any succour or relief to the family ofthe deceased Rajaram. The poor widow the petitioner herein had beenmade to run from pillar to post claiming compensation. She hadapproached the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the secondrespondent, who forwarded the demand of the petitioner to providerelief from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. However, as nothingtangible was forthcoming, she had also approached the Legal AidServices Authority, Chengalpet District. As no tangible results wereforthcoming, she had moved this court by filing this writ petitionwith the help of a public spirited advocate.11. The writ petition was admitted on 14.9.1999. It is onlywhen this Court directed the respondents to produce the originalfile relating to the RDO enquiry conducted under section 145 PSO, abelated counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent.
Thecounter filed by the first respondent far from setting out the standof the Government really trying to side track the issue. The entireattempt in the counter affidavit dated 14.10.2008 was to evade theresponsibility for compensating the death of the deceased Rajaram, who died at the hands of the police. Though in the report of the RDOit was mentioned that the death was due to suicide, there is noelaboration regarding the Government's Order in G.O.Ms.No.1604,Public (Law & Order) department, dated 18.12.1997. There is anattempt to suppress the vital truth recorded in the Government Orderwhich confirmed that the death was due to the third degree torturemeted out to the deceased Rajaram and not due to drowning.12. On the contrary, the Additional Secretary to Government, who had sworn to the affidavit, had made a passing reference to theGO and suppressed the vital portion from the GO only to get over theobligation of the State to pay compensation.
It is a crude attempton the part of the first respondent, more particularly the deponent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the affidavit, who even avoids responsibility for making paymentof compensation as per the standing instructions of the Governmentmade in G.O.Ms.No.153, Public (Law and Order) Department, dated31.1.1998 which grants Rs.1 lakh as monetary relief in case ofpersons who died due to police torture. In paragraph 10 of thecounter affidavit, without any factual or documentary basis, thedeponent to the affidavit had stated that the deceased had died dueto suicide and, therefore, his family was not covered by the G.O.This is in direct conflict with the G.O.issued by the Governmentreferred to already. When once it was factually proved by the ordersof the Government itself that the deceased Rajaram had sufferedtorture at the hands of the police personnel and also sufferedillegal detention and injuries which finally resulted in his death, the only question that remains to be answered is to what amount ofcompensation, the petitioner and her family will be entitled to.13.
This Court in more or less identical circumstances in thejudgment in Baggiam Doraiswamy -vs- State of Tamil Nadu reported in1994-2-L.W.(Crl) 687 had dealt with an issue regarding compensationordered on the basis of the report of a Revenue Enquiry. In para 8of the judgment, it was observed as follows:-''8. The petitioner has brought to the Court the factthat her son has been killed by the police. The policeversion that the petitioner's son was killed in anencounter was not accepted by the Deputy Collector whoheld the inquest and by the Member, Board of Revenue, whoheld the enquiry. The nature of injuries also indicatesthat the encounter theory does not fit in with theassault upon the petitioner's son. The assailants, it isconceded, are policemen. That they assaulted thepetitioner's son in self-defence has been accepted by the Session Judge and this Court in revision has declined tointerfere with the acquittal of he accused persons.
Yet, the assailants are identified and it cannot be said thatthe earliest finding as to the aggressive acts of thepolice as recorded by the Member, board of Revenue is notsuch a finding which this Court should accept, or thatthis Court must accept the finding in this behalf asrecorded by the Court of Session. On an independentassessment of the facts as aforementioned, which are notin controversy, I have no hesitation in holding that thepetitioner has made out a positive case of assault uponher son by the police and that policemen alone areresponsible for this death. She has lost a bread earnerand she, in my opinion, is entitled to compensation. TheCourt shall be failing in its duty, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Neelabati Bahera (AIR 1993SC 1960) supra in not ordering any compensation to thepetitioner. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Even though in that case, the question of compensation wasrestricted to Rs.1 lakh (which was the amount demanded by thepetitioner), the same petitioner preferred a writ appeal inW.A.No.1929 of 2005. The said writ appeal came to be posted before aDivision Bench, to which I am a party (K.Chandru, J.) and the Division Bench, by a judgment dated 11.8.2006 after confirming theorder passed by the learned Judge enhanced the compensation byordering interest to be paid from the date of demand of compensationtill the date of its payment.
It will be out of place to mention that the citizens ofthis country cannot be left in the lurch without being grantedrelief in case of their fundamental right being deprived at theinstance of the police personnel who are supposed to protect theperson and property of the Indian citizens. If such acts are founduncontrolled by the State, the citizens of this country are nothelpless and the long arm of Article 226 vests power on this courtto order suitable compensation.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to the Full Benchjudgment of this Court in P.P.M.Thangaiah Nadar Firm, rep.by itsPartner T.P.Prakasam, Tuticorin and others -vs- Government of TamilNadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary, Chennai and others reported in(2007) 2 MLJ 685. The Full Bench presided by P.K.Misra, J. afterreferring to various cases of the Supreme Court in paragraph 38,held as follows:-''38. Now, the inevitable end of the journey or may bebeginning of another. In view of the various decisionsnoticed by us and many other decisions referred to insuch decisions, the following conclusions can bereached. The State is not necessarily liable in everycase where there is loss of life or damage to theproperty during rioting. Where, however, it isestablished that the officers of the State ordainedwith duty of maintaining law and order have failed toprotect the life, liberty and property of person andsuch failure amounts to dereliction of duty, the Statewould be liable to pay compensation to the victim. Suchliability can be enforced through Public Law remedy or Common Law remedy. Where, necessary facts to establishculpable negligence on the part of the officials areavailable, the High Court under Article 226 can issueappropriate direction.
Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in CoimbatoreBar Association and another -vs- State of T.N. and another reportedin 2008 Writ L.R.662 also dealt with a situation where the member of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the legal profession was assaulted by the police personnel that tooin a public place. The question came up for consideration waswhether the State was liable to compensate such injury to themembers of the bar who was a victim of State violence. In paragraphNo.9 of the said decision, the Division Bench presided by A.P.Shah,C.J. had observed as follows:9. In the instant case, it is an undeniable factthat as a result of the assault, the secondpetitioner has sustained multiple injuries –bruises, abrasions and contusions and his evidenceimplicating respondents 5, 6 and 7 is found to beacceptable. Though the incident was triggered offby the second petitioner dashing against the fifthrespondent due to his low vision, there is nojurisdiction for the behaviour of the policepersonnel in having beaten him mercilessly, especially respondents 5, 6 and 7.
The humanrights of the second petitioner were violated withimpunity and he is entitled to be suitably andadequately compensated. The power of the Court toaward monetary compensation by way of exemplarycosts or otherwise is now established by thedecisions of the Supreme Court in Rudal Sah -vs-State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086); SebestianM.Hongray -vs- Union of India, (AIR 1984 SC 1026);Bhim Singh -vs- State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1986SC 494); Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre -vs-Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters(AIR 1990 SC 513) and State of Maharashtra -vs-Ravikant S.Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373). In Smt. NilabatiBehera alias Lalita Behera -vs- State of Orissa andothers (AIR 1993 SC 1960), the Supreme Court afterexamination of the earlier cases, clearly laid downthat the award of compensation in a proceedingunder Article 32 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the HighCourt is a remedy available in public law, based onstrict liability for contravention of fundamentalrights to which the principle of sovereignimmunity does not apply, even though it may beavailable as a defence in private law in an actionbased on tort.
The same view was reiterated in Consumer Education and Research Centre and others-vs- Union of India and others (AIR 1995 SC 922).In a recent judgment in Chairman, Railway Board &Others -vs- Mrs. Chandrima Das and Others ((2002) 2SCC 465), the Supreme Court observed where publicfunctionaries are involved and the matter relates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to violation of Fundamental Rights or theenforcement of public duties, the remedy wouldstill be available under the Public Lawnotwithstanding that a suit could be filed fordamages under Private Law. In our opinion, thesecond petitioner has made a strong prima faciecase for award of compensation and having regard tothe inhuman way in which the second petitioner wasmercilessly beaten, we feel that the ends ofjustice would be met, if we award Rs.50,000/- ascompensation to the second petitioner. The secondpetitioner has incurred an expenditure of more thana sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) forhis treatment and has also suffered mental agony.
But on behalf of the respondents 5 to 7, thelearned Government Pleader pleaded for someindulgence. Therefore, we fix the compensation at asum of Rs.50,000/- taking into account thesituation of the parties. It is needless to statethat the State would be entitled to recover thisamount of compensation from respondents 5 to 7, whowere found to be involved in the assault on thesecond petitioner. "
In Lucknow Development Authority -vs- N.K.Gupta reported in1994 (1) SCC 243, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 8 and 10, observedas follows:-''8. ... State is liable to compensate for loss or injurysuffered by a citizen due to arbitrary actions of itsemployees. Public authorities who are entrusted withstatutory function cannot act negligently. No functionaryin exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, exceptto the extent protected by the statute itself. Publicauthorities acting in violation of constitutional orstatutory provision oppressively are accountable for theirbehaviour before authorities created under the statutelike the commission or the Courts entrusted withresponsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Theauthority empowered to function under the statute withexercising power discharges public duty. It has to actsubserve general welfare and common good. In dischargingthis duty honestly and bona fide, loss may accrue to anyperson.
But where it is found that exercise of discretionwas mala fide and the complainant is entitled tocompensation for mental and physical harassment then theofficer cannot more claim to be under protective cover. Inmodern society no authority can arrogate to itself thepower to act in a manner which is arbitrary. When acitizen seeks to recover compensation from a public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authority in respect of injuries suffered by him forcapricious exercise of power then it has a statutoryobligation to award the same if proved".''10. ...The jurisdiction and power of the courts toindemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse ofpower by public authority is founded on the principle thatan award of exemplary damage can serve a useful purpose inindicating the strength of law. A public functionary if heacts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of powerresults in harassment and agony then it is not an exerciseof power but its abuse.
No law provides protection againstit. He is responsible for it; must suffer for it; compensation or damages may arise even when the officerdischarges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when itarises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then itlooses its individual character and assumes socialsignificance. Award of compensation for harassment bypublic authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. "
In the present case, even the State itself had acceptedthat the deceased Rajaram was taken to police custody withoutauthority kept in custody for over three days violating the mandateof Article 22(1) of the Constitution and directly violating themandatory guidelines given by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu -vs-State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1`997 SC 610. In the samejudgment, the nature of action to be taken for violation of theorder is set out in paragraphs 37 and 38, which is as follows:-''37. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the officialconcerned liable for departmental action, also render himliable to be punished for contempt of court and theproceedings for contempt of court may be instituted inany High Court of the country, having territorialjurisdiction over the matter.38. The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and need to bestrictly followed. These would apply with equal force tothe other governmental agencies also to which a referencehas been made earlier. "
Under these circumstances, the prayer of the petitionermerits acceptance. The writ petition will stand allowed and thefirst respondent State is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) to the petitioner within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and reportcompliance to this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Since the policemen who were found guilty even by the Statehave been let out with minor punishments, the action of the State ishighly condemnable. As those officers have not been madeindividually parties to this writ petition, this Court is not ableto directly take action against those officers. But, however, thefirst respondent State is directed to proceed against those officerswho were found guilty for violation of all constitutional safeguardsgiven to the citizens after due notice to those persons. Ifnecessary, recover the amounts from the personal salaries of thoseofficers. This shall be given after due notice to those officers andby passing a speaking order. But on that ground, the payment ofcompensation to the petitioner cannot be stalled any further. TheState shall adhere to the time schedule prescribed above.sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarjsTo1. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet, Chennai-15.4. The Station House Officer, Pallavaram Police Station, Chennai-43. 5. The Section Officer, Writ Section, High Court, Madras. (For watching the report)+ 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Sathia Chandran, Advocate. S.R.No.61487.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.61890. W.P.No.15229 of 1999KGK (CO)GSK 14.11.2008.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 21, 22(1), 32, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 05 Nov 2008. The bench was K CHANDRU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.