Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

Complaints Before the Commission
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
The indefeasible right to life of every citizen, including convicts, prisoners or underrials,
cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law,
while the citizen is in the custody of the State. Violation of that right renders the State
vicariously liable for its acts of commission and omission and such liability is not
contingent upon determination of the ultimate guilt of the offenders in a criminal court.
Besides, death in police custody as a result of torture is perhaps the worst type of crime
in civilized society.
(b)
(c)
(d)
It is now an established law that the failure of the State to take all possible steps to protect
the life of the citizens while in its custody makes the State vicariously liable for its
action/ omission.
Immediate interim relief envisaged in Section 18 (3) of the Act has to be correlated to the
injury / loss which the victim or members of his family have suffered owing to the violation
of human rights by public servants. By no stretch of imagination can it be argued that
award of this immediate interim has to be dependent upon the strict establishment of
criminal liability after a full dress court trial. If this view is accepted, the relief will then
neither be immediate nor interim. A meaningful and harmonious construction of this
clause would leave no doubt that the Commission is entitled to invoke its benevolent
sweep on a prima-facie view of the matter irrespective of whether there is any litigation –
civil or criminal relating to the matter.
The idea of immediate interim relief does not therefore, presuppose the establishment of
criminal liability of the offender in a court of law as a precondition for the grant of the
relief nor does it depend on whether any civil litigation is either pending or prospective. A
welfare state must recognize its obligation to afford relief to its citizens in distress, particularly
those who are victims of violations of their human rights by public servants. The limiting
of such statutory relief only to cases in which criminal liability of the offending public
servant is established in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is, to thwart an otherwise
civilized piece of legislation by importing totally irrelevant limitations. The Commission
desires to point out that the ground urged by the Government in this case, when it has
been acknowledged by the State itself that there has been violation of human rights of the
citizen, is misconceived.
4.38 Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the State Government of Gujarat to pay a
sum of Rupees One lakh by way of interim relief to the next of kin of the deceased and to submit
compliance report to the Commission within four weeks.
4.39 Vide communications dated 13/5/2005 and 14/9/2005, the State Government has informed
that it has implemented the recommendations of the Commission and submitted proof of payment
of Rs. One lakh to the widow of the deceased. Accordingly, the case was closed by the Commission.
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
31
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
51
7/17/06, 6:29 PM