When SC awarded Rs.4 Lacs as compensation to Anita Thakur & other Panthers Party Leaders in 2016
When SC awarded Rs.4 Lacs as compensation to Anita Thakur & other Panthers Party Leaders in 201
Press Trust of Kashmir | Srinagar: It was a historic judgment by the Supreme Court of India in its three-judge Bench of Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Mr. Justice R.K. Aggarwal was delivered on August 12, 2016 on the petition filed by the Panthers Party.
In the present writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are migrants of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as the ‘migrants’) state that they had planned to take out a peaceful protest march upto Delhi for ventilating their grievances. However, when they reached near Katra in Jammu & Kashmir, the respondent authorities through their police personnel had beaten up and manhandled these migrants in a most brutal and barbaric manner on 07.08.2007. It is the allegation of the petitioners that this incident has violated their rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and prayers are made in the petition for taking criminal action against the erring officials, including respondent Nos. 3 to 9, and also to pay compensation to each of the petitioners and other Jammu migrants who suffered serious injuries, in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. Prayer is also made to order the special investigation into the said episode of 07.08.2007.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the matter in depth and the Supreme Court delivered its historic judgment on August 12, 2016 granting Rs.2 Lacs as compensation to Ms. Anita Thakur, General Secretary of the Panthers Party who was seriously injured in the police lathicharge also and remained detained for long. The Supreme Court in its judgment concluded that, “Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the present case and finding that even the petitioners are to be blamed to some extent, as pointed out above, the only relief we grant is to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) each to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, which shall be paid to these petitioners within a period of two months”.
In its judgment the Supreme Court had while commenting on the circumstances of the case said in its judgment, “When we examine the present matter in the aforesaid conspectus, we find that initially it was the petitioners/protestors who took the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a violent one and in the process becoming unruly and petting stones at the police. On the other hand, even the police personnel continued the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob. In the process, they continued their lathi charge. They continued to beat up all the three petitioners even after overpowering them. They had virtually apprehended these petitioners making them immobile. However, their attack on these petitioners continued even thereafter when it was not at all needed. As far as injuries suffered by these petitioners are concerned, such a situation could clearly be avoided. It is apparent that to that extent, respondents misused their power. To that extent, the fundamental right of the petitioners, due to police excess, has been violated. In such circumstances, in exercise of its power under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court can award compensation to the petitioners {See–Saheli, A Women’s Resources Center, Through Ms. Nalini Bhanot & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters & Ors.3; Joginder Kaur v. The Punjab State & Ors.4; The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhywati & Anr.5; and Smt. Nilabati Behera @Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa & Ors.6}.
The ratio of these precedents can be explained thus:
First, it is clear that a violation of fundamental rights due to police misconduct can give rise to a liability under public law, apart from criminal and tort law. Secondly, that pecuniary compensation can be awarded for such a violation of fundamental rights. Thirdly, it is the State that is held liable and, therefore, the compensation is borne by the State and not the individual police officers found guilty of misconduct. Fourthly, this Court has held that the standard of proof required for proving police misconduct such as brutality, torture and custodial violence and for holding the State accountable for the same, is high. It is only for patent and incontrovertible violation of fundamental rights that such remedy can be made available. Fifthly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to cases of fundamental rights violation and hence cannot be used as a defence in public law”.
Prof.Bhim Singh described the judgment as a historic one where a senior journalist & Panthers Party Leader, Mr. P.K. Ganju and practicing Lawyer of the High Court of J&K, Mr. H.C. Jalmeria were awarded compensation besides Rs.2 Lacs was an exemplary compensation awarded to Ms. Anita Thakur. All this compensation the State of J&K had to pay which itself is a legal history to be remembered and studied as reported as Anita Thakur & Ors. Versus Govt. of J&K & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.118/2007).:-PTK.
