Supreme Court of India
PEOPLES' UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTSversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 273
- Decided
- 19 December 1986
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
Compensation of Rs 20,000 for each death and Rs 5,000 for each injury must be paid, the police investigation must be completed within three months, and the writ should not be transferred to the Supreme Court but dealt with by the High Court.
Summary
The Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights filed a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that on 19 April 1986 the police opened fire on a peaceful gathering of poor peasants in Arwal, Bihar, killing at least 21 persons and injuring many others. The petition sought full compensation for the victims, withdrawal of the police case, settlement of a land dispute, and a judicial inquiry. While a State‑government inquiry had already paid Rs 10,000 to some families, the Supreme Court held that a uniform compensation of Rs 20,000 per death and Rs 5,000 per injury should be paid, with adjustments for amounts already disbursed. The Court directed that the pending police investigation be completed within three months and that any charges filed could be challenged in accordance with law. It also ruled that the matter was more suitably dealt with by the High Court, refusing to transfer the High Court writ to the Supreme Court, but allowing the petitioner to implead itself there for further relief, including the possible disclosure of the inquiry report. The writ petition was therefore disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a writ under Article 32 when a similar petition is pending before the High Court.
- Whether compensation is payable to victims of police firing and what quantum is appropriate.
- Whether the Supreme Court can direct the withdrawal of the police case and the completion of its investigation.
- Whether the report of the judicial inquiry can be made public and how privilege claims should be handled.
- Whether the transfer of the High Court writ petition to the Supreme Court is appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
police firingcompensationArticle 32public interest litigationhuman rightsBiharland disputejudicial inquiryprivilegejurisdiction transfer
Judgment
PEOPLES' UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
DECEMBER 19, 1986
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] B
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 32-Police firing-Some
persons killed and several others injured-Payment of compensation-
Necessity for.
Public Interest LitiKation~Po/ice firin~Some persons dying c
- and several others injured-!'ayment of compensation-Necessity of.
The petitioner-an organisation, said to .be committed to the up-
... · holding 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 decimals of low lying land at Arwal between mem- D
bers 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 tielonging to the backward classes assembled in the
c9mpound of Gandhi library at Arwal for holding a peaceful meeting.
At that time, the'Superintendent of Police reached the spot w.ith police
force, surroUJ1ded the gathering and without any warning or provoca- E
·j._ tion opened fire, ;is 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 F.
compensation shoold be awarded to the victims-relations of the dead and
to th"!"' injured by the police firing; (ii) A direction be given for with-
·' drawal of the police case; (iii) Direction for settlement of.the land in
~ _ dispute with the nine poor families; and (iv) transfer of the writ petition
pending. in the Patna High Court lo this Court for hearing.
G
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the State Government
held a judicial inquiry into the aforesaid incident by a Member of the
Board of Revenue, and, awarded compensation to the heirs and. rda-
tions of a few of the dead people to the tune of Rs. 10,000 each.
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court,
H
HELD: I. ff would be appropriate that the matter Is examined by
631
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.
A the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to produce mate- -~
rial before the High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will
he in a position to call for documents 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
B may not he appropriate. It would not be proper therefore to have the
writ petition in the High Court transferred 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
c emerge in police firing, the State comes forward to give compensation.
No justification has been indicated 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. How-
ever, in the case of death the liability of the wrong doer is not absolved
D when compensation of Rs.20,000 is paid. [6358-D]
3.(a) Without prejudice lo 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
Rs.20,000 and for every injured person compensation of Rs.S,000 shall
E be paid. Where some compensation has already been paid, the same
may be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid. [6350-F]
(b) In case the petitioner presses for disclosure of the report sub- ·
m\tted 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
F 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
G maintainability of the charges in accordance with law. [6368]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 369 of
1986.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
H
PEOPLES' U.F.D. v. STATEOFBIHAR [MISRA,J.] 633
Govind Mukhoty, Ms. Nandita Haksar and L.R. Singh for the A
Petitioners.
D. Gobur5lhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
RANGANATH MISRA, J, Peoples' Union for Democratic
Rights, an organisation said to be committed to the upholding of
fundamental rights of citizens has filed this application 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 com- c
pound 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 provol'"tion 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
of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons in~luding D
children'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 justifica-
tion for the firing. It appears that there was a dispute relating to
possession of 26 decimals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at
Arwal and to such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side. E
and members·of nine poor families on the other· were parties. Even
though several people died and many more were ·injured by the ruth-
less and unwarranted firing resorted to by the police, to give a cover to
the atrocities, the police started a false case beingArwal P.S. Case No.
59 of 1986 and therein implicated several innocent people including
even some of the people wlio had been killed in the firing. Three F
specific prayers were made in the writ petition, namely:
(1) To issue an appropriate writ or make an order or direc-
. tion in the matter of payment of full and proper com-
pensation to the victims-relations of the dead and to
the people.who were injured by police firing; G
(2) For a direction to withdraw the police case referred to
above; and
(3) For a direction to Respo'ndent No. 1 to settle the
land in dispute with the nine poor families. H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987]1 S.C.R.
A During the hearing of the matter, an additional ·relief was pres-
sed, 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 appli-
cation the State Government in response to the growing demand for a
B judicial inquiry into the matter directed 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 pro-
duced before this Court with a claim of privilege against disclosure
thereof.
c 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
D respect tqereof 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 petition have been disputed. It
has also been brought to our notice tha'. a writ petition has been filed
before the Patna High Court prior to filing of this application under
E 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
F 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 ap-.
G propriate. In these circumstances, we have not thought it proper to
have the writ petition in the High Court transferred to this Cotirt. On
the other hand, we have considered it expedient and proper in the
interest of justice 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 pending writ petition or
H by the 'filing of an independent application.
PEOPLES' U.F.D. v. STATE OF BIHAR IMISRA,J.] 635
There has been no dispute that as a result of the police firing 21 A
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 indicated as to why the said compensation"has not been given
in every case of death or in jury. It is a normal fe"ature of which judicial
notice can be taken that when such unfortunate consequences emerge B
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
- j._ 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 c
·quantum of compensation 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: D
(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
thousand and for every injured person compensation of E
Rupees five thousand shall be paid. Where some com-
pensation has already been paid; the same may be
.... adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid .
These payments be made within two month~ hence.
(2) In case the petitioner gets impleaded in the pending F
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. G
(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 H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.
A 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 submitted, it would be open to the
B 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 disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "police firing"Sign in to search