Holding

The Court held that acceptance of the Commission's recommendations by the State makes them enforceable, and therefore issued comprehensive directions to implement them, including compensation with interest, tracing missing persons, and police reforms.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Article 32 seeking implementation of the Srikrishna Commission's recommendations on the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, including compensation for victims, tracing of missing persons, and police reforms. The Court observed that while the Commission's report is not binding, the State's acceptance of its recommendations creates a governmental obligation enforceable by mandamus. It directed the formation of a monitoring committee headed by the Member Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to oversee compensation payments, interest on delayed payments, and efforts to locate heirs of missing persons. The Court also ordered the State to provide details of pending riot‑related criminal cases, to constitute a special cell for tracing absconding accused, and to implement accepted police‑reform measures. The petition was disposed of with these detailed directions, and the State was required to report compliance within specified time‑frames.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government is bound to implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission after accepting them, and whether the Court can issue mandamus under Article 32.
Whether compensation to victims and heirs of missing persons must be paid with interest for delay.
Whether legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is required for victims of ethnic violence.
Whether disciplinary actions against police officials can be revisited after long passage of time.
How pending riot‑related criminal cases and absconding accused should be dealt with.
Whether the quantum of compensation can be enhanced beyond the amounts fixed in 1993.

Legislation cited

Subjects

communal riotscompensationmissing personspolice reformslegal aidmandamusArticle 32implementation of commission recommendationsinterest on delayed compensationspecial cell for tracing accused

Judgment

[2022] 8 S.C.R. 705 705

SHAKEEL AHMED A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 182 of 2001)
NOVEMBER 4, 2022 B
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA AND
VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Directions – Direction issued to the State Government to
implement the recommendations – Government of Maharashtra in
the aftermath of communal riots and bomb blasts that occurred in C
Mumbai between December 1992 and March 1993 constituted a
Commission – The Commission submitted its report in February
1998, which contained recommendations on various issues,
including the causes of the riots, inadequate measures taken by the
police, failure to register crimes, delay in the disposal of criminal D
cases, political interference in the functioning of the police
machinery, and lack of physical fitness among police personnel –
Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court u/Art. 32
of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the respondents
to accept and act on the findings and recommendations of the
Commission – Petitioner alleged that many of the recommendations E
have not been implemented – Held: The Court formed a committee
to monitor implementation of the judgment – The State government
was ordered to provide a report on missing persons, compensate
legal heirs, pay interest on compensation, and provide details of
pending cases – The Government was given nine months to complete F
the exercise – State directed to implement recommendations made
on the issue of police reforms and constitute a special cell to trace
missing accused persons.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD:1. Following order was passed in disposing the G
petition -
1. There shall be a Committee headed by the Member
Secretary of MSLSA to monitor the implementation of the
directions issued by this Judgment. The State Government shall
appoint a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Deputy H
705
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A Collector, and a Police Officer, not below the rank of Assistant
Commissioner of Police, who shall be the other two members of
the Committee;
2. The State Government shall submit to the Committee a
report containing details of 168 missing persons including their
B names and addresses. The State Government will also place
material regarding efforts made to trace family members of 108
missing persons who have been deprived of compensation in
terms of the second Government Resolution. The State
Government shall make all possible efforts to trace the legal heirs/
family members of the missing persons. The Committee shall
C monitor this exercise. The Committee shall assist the legal
representatives of the missing persons to complete the procedural
formalities;
3. The State Government shall also submit to the Committee
the record relating to compensation paid in terms of the Annexure
D to the First Government Resolution as well as in terms of the
second Government Resolution by incorporating the specific
dates on which the compensation was actually paid to the persons
entitled to it. The State Government shall also provide a list of
victims who have not been paid compensation in terms of both
E the Government Resolutions;
4. The State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.2
lakhs to the legal heirs of the missing persons traced out hereafter,
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 22nd January 1999
i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of
F the second Government Resolution, till actual payment;
5. The Committee consisting of the Secretary of MSLSA
and the other two Government Officers appointed under this
order, shall monitor the efforts of the State Government to trace
other victims who were entitled to compensation in terms of the
G Annexure to the first Government Resolution but compensation
was not paid to them. The victims identified hereafter shall also
be paid the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from 8th January 1994 i.e. from the expiry of the period of
six months from the date of the First Government Resolution,
till actual payment;
H
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 707

6. To those who were paid compensation after the expiry of A
the period of six months from the date of the applicable
Government Resolution, the State Government shall pay interest
at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of the compensation
payable from the expiry of the period of six months from the date
of the applicable Government Resolution till the date of payment.
B
This direction will apply to those who have received compensation
before the date of this Judgment. The Committee, after examining
the record, shall furnish to the State Government the details of
the victims who are entitled to receive interest as above;
7. The State Government shall comply with the requirement
of submitting necessary details as aforesaid to the Committee C
within a period of two months from today. Appointment of the two
officers, as directed above, shall be made within a period of one
month from today. Both the Government Officers shall coordinate
with concerned Departments and ensure that necessary details,
as directed by the Committee, are furnished to the Committee D
within the specified time of two months;
8. The entire exercise of payment of compensation and/or
interest shall be completed by the State Government within a
period of nine months from today. The State Government shall
report compliance made from time to time to the Committee. A E
detailed report containing details of the compliance of the
directions as aforesaid shall be filed by the Secretary of MSLSA
with this Court within a period of ten months from today;
9. The Committee shall seek necessary guidance from the
Executive Chairperson of MSLSA for implementation of the F
directions issued by this order. The Committee shall be entitled
to seek the assistance of Para Legal volunteers;
10. The State Government shall provide details of the only
pending riot related criminal case before the Sessions Court at
Mumbai to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court who G
shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Court that the case
needs to be disposed of at the earliest;
11. The State Government shall provide details of 97 cases
on dormant files to the Registrar General of the Bombay High
Court within one month from today. On receipt of the details, the
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A High Court on the Administrative side shall issue necessary
communication to the concerned Courts in which the cases are
pending to take necessary steps to trace the accused. The State
Government shall immediately constitute a Special Cell to trace
the absconding /missing accused in these cases and to assist the
concerned Courts so that the Trial can proceed against them;
B
and
12. The State Government shall expeditiously implement
all the recommendations made by the Commission on the issue
of reforms in the police force which were accepted by it. [Para
28][725-D-H; 726-A-H; 727-A-G]
C
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.182
of 2001.
(Under Article 32 Of The Constitution of India)
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui,
D Ejaz Maqbool, Saif Zia, Sadiq Noor, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ms. Binu
Tamta, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij Kishore Shah, Adarsh Kumar Pandey,
Ms. Shivani Rautela, Ms. Apurva, P. Parmeswaran, B. Krishna Prasad,
V. N. Raghupathy, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo
Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Durgesh Gupta, Ms. Swarupama
E Chaturvedi, Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, T. S. Sabarish, Padmesh Mishra, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
F
1. The city of Mumbai had a torrid time from 6th December 1992
till 12th March 1993. Mumbai witnessed perhaps the worst mob frenzy,
violence, communal tension and riots from 6th December 1992 to 10th
December 1992 and from 6th January 1993 to 20th January 1993. There
were many incidents of arson and violence resulting in a large-scale loss
G of lives and damage to properties. The Police resorted to firing at many
places. Ultimately, Army was called to aid the civil administration.
Thereafter, the situation was gradually brought under control. When the
citizens of Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were
serial bomb blasts in various parts of the city on 12th March 1993. In
H December 1992 and January 1993, there were about 900 deaths, 168
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 709
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

persons were reported missing and about 2036 persons suffered injuries. A
As a result of the serial bomb blasts of 12th March 1993, there were 257
deaths and 1400 people were injured.
2. The Government of Maharashtra by a notification dated 25th
January 1993 constituted a Commission under the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the 1952 Act’) headed by Hon’ble Shri B
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, the then sitting Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, who subsequently retired as a Judge of this Court.
The Terms of Reference of the Commission were as under:
“(i) The circumstances, events and immediate causes of the
incidents which occurred in the Bombay Police
Commissionerate area in December 1992 on or after the C
6th December 1992 and, again in January 1993, on or after
the 6th January 1993;
(ii) Whether any individual or group of individuals or any other
organizations, were responsible for such events and
circumstances; D
(iii) The adequacy or otherwise of the precautionary and
preventive measures, taken by the Police preceding the
aforesaid incidents;
(iv) Whether the steps taken by the Police in controlling the
riots were adequate and proper and whether the Police firing E
resulting in deaths was justified or not; and
(v) The measures, long and short term, which are required to
be taken by the administration to avoid recurrence of such
incidents, to secure communal harmony and also to suggest
improvements in law and order machinery.” F
3. Subsequently, the Terms of Reference of the Commission were
expanded by the State Government and the following additional terms
were incorporated:
“(vi) The circumstances and the immediate cause of the incidents
commonly known as the serial bomb-blasts of the 12th March G
1993, which occurred in the Bombay Police
Commissionerate area;
(vii) Whether the incidents referred to in term (i), have any
common link with the incidents referred to in term (vi)
above; and
H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A (viii) Whether the incidents referred to in term (i) and in term
(vi) were part of a common design.”
By a notification dated 23rd January 1996,the State Government
disbanded the Commission on a very strange ground that there was an
inordinate delay on the part of the Commission in submitting its report.
B As noted in the report of the Commission, the then Hon’ble Prime Minister
requested the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to revive the Commission
and that is how it was revived by the notification dated 28th May 1996.
The Commission submitted its report on 16th February 1998 which
consisted of two volumes. Volume-I contained the conclusions and
recommendations of the Commission. Volume II contained a summary
C of the evidence recorded and analysis of the evidence.
4. The present petition invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. There are five substantive prayers
made in the petition, which read thus:

D “i. Declare that an enquiry conducted under the Commission
of Enquiry Act, 1952, would tantamount to an Inquiry within
the meaning of Article 311 [2] of the Constitution of India;
ii. Declare that a public servant found guilty/indicted under
the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 be liable to be
E summarily dismissed; and
iii. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus
and/or like nature directing the Respondent-State to accept
and act on the finding of the Sri Krishna Commission of
Enquiry; and
F iv. Issue a Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus
and or like nature directing the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra that SUMMARY cases be re-opened and
action taken in accordance with the recommendations of
the Sri Krishna Commission Report;
G v. Direct Respondents to pay compensation to the persons
identified as MISSING and the cases concerning them to
be closed;”
The Recommendations of Justice B. N. Srikrishna
Commission and the Response of the State Government
H
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 711
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

5. The entire petition revolves around the issue of implementation A
of the recommendations of the Commission. The recommendations which
are relevant for deciding this petition can be summarized as under:
i. Based on the study conducted by a committee of experts
of Tata Institute of Social Sciences appointed by the
Commission which dealt with the immediate causes of the B
riots, the Commission opined that the causes were political,
socio-economic and demographic;
ii. The precautionary and preventive measures taken by the
Police preceding the incidents of riots were inadequate. The
intelligence machinery of the Police did not give information C
in good time about the possible damage to the Babri Maszid.
Moreover, there was no effort made to make an accurate
assessment of the situation, which could arise due to possible
damage to the Babri Maszid. The Intelligence Department
failed to gather crucial information about the closed door
meetings held by the two different religious groups, which D
were found responsible for the riots;
iii. The Police machinery proved to be inadequate to deal with
the situation. Moreover, the Police were hopelessly
outnumbered as the strength of the Police staff was
inadequate even to handle day-to-day problems; E

iv. The Commission found that there was a failure to register
crimes by the Police. There was a delay in registering
crimes. The investigation was carried out in an arbitrary
and casual manner;
F
v. There was a delay in the disposal of criminal cases
concerning riot-related offences;
vi. There was a lot of political interference in the functioning
of the Police machinery;
vii. The commission concluded that the Police officials named G
in paragraph 1.30 of Volume-I of its report, were found
actively participating in riots, communal incidents and
incidents of looting, arson, etc. The Commission
recommended the initiation of disciplinary action against
the said Police officials;
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A viii. The Commission noted that the members of the police force
were lacking physical fitness. The Commission recorded
that long and arduous working hours leave them no time
for physical exercises. The Commission recommended that
strict standards of physical fitness be enforced; and
B ix. The Commission recommended improvement of conditions
of work of the Police and also recommended that proper
housing facilities be provided to the police.
6. The State Government issued a Memorandum of action to be
taken by the Government on the report of the Commission (for short,
C ‘the Memorandum’). Most of the recommendations were accepted by
the State Government. The action proposed by the State Government
was incorporated in the Memorandum. The response of the State
Government to some of the relevant recommendations reads thus:
i. The State Government noted that the Police have classified
D a large number of offences relating to riots in ‘A’ Summary
(true but undetected). The Government decided to appoint
a committee comprising Officers from Home Department,
Law Department and senior Police Officers to scrutinize
all ‘A’ Summary cases and carry out reinvestigation,
wherever warranted;
E
ii. Instructions would be issued to the Police Department to
ensure effective and speedy trials in offences relating to
riots;
iii. The State Government has decided to pay compensation to
F the victims of the riots and violence;
iv. The State Government has decided to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the erring police officials; and
v. The State Government assured to improve the conditions
in which the police force was working.
G The State Government did not agree with some of the conclusions
drawn by the Commission especially its findings on the causes of the
riots/violence. But, the Government agreed to act upon majority of
recommendations.
7. There are affidavits filed by both sides. The affidavits filed on
H the side of the petitioner make a grievance about the failure of the State
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 713
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission and A
also the failure to bring the offenders to book.
Rival Submissions
8. Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel representing
the petitioner, submitted that as can be seen from the affidavits on record,
the action taken by the State Government on the recommendations of B
the Commission is merely an eyewash. He pointed out that the Police
Officials who were found guilty of serious misconduct by the Commission
were let off either by exonerating them or by imposing very minor
penalties. He pointed out that almost all the prosecutions ended either in
discharge of the accused or in acquittal. He made a grievance that the
Legal Services Authorities constituted at the State and the District levels, C
failed to render assistance to the victims of the offence and/or to the
legal heirs of the victims of the offence, as the case may be. Legal
assistance was not provided to the victims or legal heirs of the victims
for challenging the orders of discharge or acquittal and for filing
proceedings for recovery of compensation. As a result, the victims got D
no relief from the State machinery and even from the judiciary. He also
submitted that meagre compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the legal
heirs of those who lost lives in the riots. Moreover, there was inordinate
delay in making the payment of compensation. Very few families of
missing persons were paid compensation, though, by legal fiction, the
persons missing for more than seven years are treated as dead. He E
would, therefore, submit that the compensation deserves to be enhanced
substantially and a direction be issued to the State Government to ensure
that compensation is paid to every eligible victim/ his or her heirs. He
submitted that victims be provided interest to compensate them for the
delayed payment. F
9. Shri Rahul Chitnis, the learned counsel representing the State
Government urged that there is no default on the part of the State
Government. He submitted that all efforts were made to trace the family
members of missing persons and compensation was promptly paid to
them. He submitted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
G
the Police Officers named by the Commission and were taken to the
logical end. He submitted that it is too late in the day now for this Court
to interfere and issue directions to challenge the orders of acquittal or
discharge. He submitted that some such orders were unsuccessfully
challenged before the higher forum. His submission is that with the
passage of time, no directions are warranted in this petition. H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A Consideration of Submissions
10. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. During
the course of the submissions, the first two prayers were not seriously
pressed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The
recommendations of a Commission appointed under the 1952 Act cannot
B bind the Government. The Courts cannot compel the Government to act
upon the report. But, once the Government accepts the recommendations,
a Writ Court can issue a mandamus for the implementation of the
recommendations as it becomes an obligation of the Government to
implement the recommendations. A perusal of the affidavits filed in this
petition as well as connected petitions which were disposed of by the
C order dated 30th August 2022, shows that while the State Government
disputed most of the conclusions drawn by the Commission regarding
the causes of the riots, most of the recommendations regarding taking
corrective measures were accepted as can be seen from the
Memorandum filed by the State Government. We are conscious of the
D fact that the recommendations of the Commission were submitted more
than 24 years back and most of the trials and disciplinary inquiries have
been concluded more than 20 years back. Nevertheless, we are dealing
with submissions canvassed across the Bar.
Action Against Erring Police Officials
E 11. Firstly, we will deal with the conduct of disciplinary proceedings
against the erring police officials as recommended by the Commission.
The details thereof are found in the Affidavit dated 13th March 2020 of
Shri Amitabh Gupta, the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Maharashtra. In terms of the recommendations of the
F Commission, FIRs were registered against nine police officials. Two of
them were discharged and seven were acquitted. The complainants/
victims filed revision applications against orders of discharge dated 16 th
April 2003 of two officials. The revision applications were dismissed.
The matters were carried to this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions,
which were dismissed on 4th July 2011. In the case of six police officials,
G orders of acquittal were passed on 18th November 2005, and one officer
was acquitted by an order dated 9th September 2014. These orders of
acquittal were not challenged. Out of nine police officials, seven have
already been superannuated. The State Government has not stated the
reasons for not questioning the orders of acquittal. The State should
H have been vigilant and proactive in these cases. Now it is too late in the
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 715
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

day to direct the State to examine whether the orders of acquittal deserve A
to be challenged.
12. Now, coming to the disciplinary inquiry initiated against various
police officials, we find that one official was dismissed from service.
One official was made to compulsorily retire by way of punishment. On
nine other police officials, minor penalties have been imposed. Out of B
the said nine police officials, against whom minor penalties were imposed,
eight officials have already retired from service. Eight other police officials
were exonerated. Out of them, five officials have since retired. Inquiry
against one police official was dropped as he died during the pendency
of the inquiry. In view of long passage of time, as far as the disciplinary
action is concerned, now in the year 2022, it will be inappropriate to go C
into the question of the validity of the orders passed by the disciplinary
authorities and the adequacy of the penalties imposed. In any case, in a
writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, a Writ Court
should not normally interfere with disciplinary proceedings.
Riot Related Criminal Cases D

13. The affidavit discloses the details of the fate of 253 riot related
criminal cases. The outcome of these cases can be summarized as under:

E

It is noted in the affidavit that the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay had nominated two learned Sessions Judges and two learned
Metropolitan Magistrates as the Special Courts for dealing with criminal F
cases relating to the violence in December 1992 and January 1993. The
affidavit discloses that one case is still pending in the Sessions Court.
We propose to direct the Sessions Court to dispose of the pending case
at the earliest. Ninety-seven cases are on dormant files. The reason
must be that either the accused therein are not traceable or are G
absconding. The High Court, on the administrative side, must issue
appropriate directions to the concerned Courts in which these cases are
pending. The High Court must ensure that the concerned Courts take
appropriate steps for tracing the accused. The State Government will
have to set up a special cell for tracing the accused.
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A Failure To Provide Legal Aid To The Victims
14. Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel made a
grievance that the victims of the offences ought to have been provided
legal aid by the State and the District Legal Services Authorities
established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short,
B ‘the 1987 Act’) for challenging the orders of acquittal. His grievance
was that the Legal Services Authorities have not performed their duty.
Though no directions can be issued at this stage to grant legal aid,
nevertheless, we are examining the legal contentions.
15. Section 12 of the 1987 Act lays down the criteria for giving
C legal services which reads thus:
“12. Criteria for giving legal services — Every person who
has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services
under this Act if that person is—
(a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
D
(b) a victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to
in article 23 of the Constitution;
(c) a woman or a child;
(d) a person with disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of
E the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996);
(e) a person under circumstances of underserved want such
as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic, violence, caste
atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster;
F or
(f) an industrial workman; or
(g) in custody, including custody in a protective home within the
meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), or in a juvenile home within
G the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
1986 (53 of 1986), or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing
home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Mental
Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987); or
(h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or
H such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 717
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme A
Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher
amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the
case is before the Supreme Court.”
(emphasis added)
16. Under Clause (e) of Section 12 of the 1987 Act, a person who B
is subjected to ethnic violence, is entitled to legal services under the
1987 Act. The meaning of the adjective “ethnic” according to Merriam-
Webster dictionary is “of or relating to large groups of people classed
according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural
origin or background”. The term “ethnic” can be narrowly construed as C
including solely “linguistic” or “racial” groups. If it is given a broad
meaning, it will include religion, tribe and caste in group distinction. Looking
at the conclusions in the report of the Commission and the response to
the recommendations of the State Government in the form of the
Memorandum, there is no manner of doubt that communal disharmony
between two religious groups was one of the main causes of the riots D
and violence. There are enough indications in both documents that there
was tension between the two religious groups which is one of the major
causes of the incidents of violence. Considering the object of the 1987
Act, a broad meaning will have to be assigned to the word “ethnic” for
the purposes of considering the entitlement to grant of legal aid. Therefore, E
these incidents of December 1992 and January 1993 are the incidents of
ethnic violence within the meaning of clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of
Section 12 of the 1987 Act. Hence, on an application being made by the
victims of the offence or their legal heirs, legal services could have been
provided to them by appointing advocates, who could have assisted the
Criminal Courts in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 301 of the Code F
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) during the course of
trials. Legal services could have been provided to the victims to challenge
the orders of acquittal. But we must remember that those were the
early days of the Legal Services Authorities. With the passage of time,
the Legal Services Authorities right from the Taluka level to national G
level, have expanded their activities for effectively rendering legal
services. Now multiple activities are being conducted by the Legal
Services Authorities at various levels. The scope of legal services has
been considerably widened during the last few decades. During the
pandemic of COVID 19, these authorities reached the poor and needy
H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A by providing assistance to them. We hope and trust that after 75 years
of independence, riot-like situations will never arise. Unfortunately, if
such situations arise, we are sure that the Legal Services Authorities at
various levels will come to the rescue of the victims of violence and
render legal services to them, keeping in mind the spirit of Section 12 of
the 1987 Act. Now, it is too late in the day to direct the Legal Services
B
Authorities to render legal aid to the victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots
for challenging the orders of acquittal.
Failure To Make Proper Investigation
17. One of the grievances of the petitioner was that in large number
of riots related offences, a proper investigation was not carried out and
C therefore, about 1371 cases were closed by classifying as ‘A’ Summary
(true but undetected). The affidavit of Shri Amitabh Gupta notes that
the State Government had appointed a Committee under the chairmanship
of the Director General of Police to scrutinize all cases which were
classified as ‘A’ Summary. In terms of the directions of the Committee,
D reinvestigation was carried out in 112 cases under the supervision of the
Officers of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. Out of the 112
cases, 104 were again classified as ‘A’ Summary. In the remaining eight
cases, charge sheets were filed. Out of the eight cases, seven cases
resulted in acquittal, and in one case, where the offence was
compoundable, the case was compounded.
E
Recommendation on Police Reforms
18. The Commission in its report has made several suggestions
for reinforcing and improving Police Force. The recommendations are
very wide and cover many aspects. The Commission recommended
that professionalism needs to be introduced in the Police Force. The
F Commission has laid emphasis on the training and physical fitness of the
members of the Police Force. The Commission suggested improvements
in the weaponry held by the Police Force. The Commission also suggested
vast improvements in the communication systems of the Police. There
is also a recommendation made to stop political interference in the day-
G to-day functioning of the police. We may note here that with the passage
of time and with the advancement of technology, there has been a
considerable improvement in the communication systems used by the
Police. The Commission’s suggestion of setting up Rapid Action Squads
has been implemented. The Commission suggested that various steps
should be taken to boost the morale of the Police Force, such as providing
H
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 719
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

proper housing facilities to them, reducing political interference in the A
day-to-day functioning of the Police Force, etc. The Memorandum of
the Government records that most of these recommendations have been
accepted by the State Government. But what remains is the
implementation part. The State Government cannot ignore the
recommendations made by the Commission for the improvement and
B
modernization of the Police Force and the recommendations shall continue
to guide the State Government.
Compensation to Victims
19. That takes us to the crucial issue of payment of compensation
to the victims of the riots. We have already noted that whether due to
the violence or police firing, 900 people lost their lives and 2036 people C
got injured in December 1992 and January 1993.
20. Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers a right on every
citizen to live with human dignity. Article 21 encompasses into itself the
right to live a meaningful and dignified life. All the aspects of life which
make a person live with human dignity, are covered by the word ‘life’ D
used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the citizens are forced
to live in an atmosphere of communal tension, it affects their right to life
guaranteed by Article 21. The violence witnessed by Mumbai in December
1992 and January 1993 adversely affected the right of the residents of
the affected areas to lead dignified and meaningful life. It cannot be E
disputed that certain groups were responsible for the large-scale violence
in December 1992 and January 1993. There was a failure on the part of
the State Government to maintain law and order and to protect the rights
of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
As noted earlier, 900 persons died and more than 2000 persons were
injured. The houses, places of business and properties of the citizens F
were destroyed. These are all violations of their rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One of the root causes of their
suffering was the failure of the State Government to maintain law and
order. Therefore, the affected persons had a right to seek compensation
from the State Government. Though belatedly, by a Government
G
Resolution dated 8th July 1993 (the first Government Resolution), a
decision was taken to give financial assistance to the persons affected
due to riots in December 1992 and January 1993 as well as due to the
serial bomb blasts in the city of Mumbai. Nearly five and a half years
after the incidents of riots, the Government Resolution dated 22 nd July
1998 (the second Government Resolution) was issued, providing for giving H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs to the legal heirs of the missing persons.
The eligibility criteria and procedure for disbursement were laid down in
the second Government Resolution.
21. The affidavit of Shri Amitabh Gupta dated 13th March 2020
notes that 900 persons died in the riots and 168 persons were reported
B missing. He claimed that compensation has been paid to the legal heirs
of all 900 dead persons and family members of 60 missing persons. A
direction was issued by this Court on 30th August 2022, directing the
State Government to disclose the details of the compensation paid to the
victims. It is necessary to quote the aforesaid order dated 30 th August
2022 of this Court, which reads thus:
C “….We have heard learned counsel for parties.
In order to deal with all the aspects raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner, more specifically the aspect of compensation, we
require a better explanation of exhibit-B at page 26 of the affidavit
filed by the State of Maharashtra dated 13.3.2020. We would
D require information as under:-
(i) Whether the figure of 168 persons who are stated to be missing
form a part of the 900 number of victims identified;
(ii)Whether any compensation has been paid to the legal heirs of
the persons who have been found missing;
E (iii) What is the reference to the compensation paid to heirs of
victims;
(iv) Whether any compensation has been paid for loss of property;
(v) When was these compensations paid i.e. the time lag
between the date of the incident and the compensation being
F made.
An affidavit be filed in terms aforesaid within two weeks.
Arguments concluded.
Judgment reserved.”
(emphasis added)
G
The State Government by the affidavit of Shri Mangesh Manjabhau
Shinde, Joint Secretary of the Home Department purported to comply
with the above directions. The response of the State Government in the
affidavit of Shri Mangesh Manjabhau Shinde reads thus:
“(i) Whether the figure of 168 persons who are stated to be missing
H form a part of the 900 number of victims identified.
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 721
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Reply – The total number of missing persons is 168 which is not A
the part of total 900 victims.
(ii) Whether any compensation has been paid to the legal heirs of
the persons who have been found missing;
Reply-The total compensation Rs.1,19,00,000/- paid to the
legal heirs of the 60 missing persons. The compensation B
to the legal heirs of the remaining missing persons has not
yet been given for the reasons that the legal heirs were not
found, residential addresses were not found, undertaking
not submitted by the legal heirs, police case is registered
against the missing person, etc.
C
(iii) What is the reference to the compensation paid to heirs of
victims;
Reply – The compensation to legal heirs of victims and the
compensation for the loss of property is given with reference to
the Government Resolution, dated 08.07.1993. A true copy of the
Government Resolution dated 08.07.1993 is annexed herewith and D
marked as Annexure-R-2.
The compensation paid to the legal heirs of missing persons is
given with reference to the Government Resolution, dated
22.07.1998. A true copy of the Government Resolution dated
22.07.1998 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-3. E
(iv) Whether any compensation has been paid for loss of property;
Reply – Compensation for Rs.3,31,92,658/- has been paid for loss
of property. The bifurcation is as below :-

F

G

(v) When was these compensations paid i.e. the time lag between
the date of the incident and the compensation being made.
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A Reply – After the guidelines issued by GR dated 08/07/
1993 and GR dated 22/07/1998, the compensation was paid
for over the period from year 1992 to 2010 after thorough
scrutiny of the cases of compensation as per the GR norms,
from time to time.”
B (emphasis added)
22. Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is
a presumption that if a person has not been heard of for seven years or
more by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been
alive, such a person is presumed to be dead unless the contrary is proved
C by the person who affirms it. It is in view of the statutory presumption
that the State Government has come out with the scheme to pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the legal heirs/family members of the
missing persons. Now, coming to the missing persons, the family members
of only 60 missing persons have been paid compensation. As regards
the family members of remaining 108 missing persons, compensation
D was not paid for various reasons, such as, the persons concerned were
not found, their residential addresses were not found, undertakings were
not submitted by them etc. The State Government has not set out the
efforts made to trace the family members of the missing persons and to
make sure that they make compliance, such as the execution of the
E undertakings. We propose to constitute a Committee headed by the
Member Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority
(for short, ‘MSLSA’), to look into the records relating to the remaining
108 missing persons. We propose to direct the State Government to
nominate a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collector
and a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of
F Police as the other two members of the Committee. The Committee
shall monitor the efforts made by the State Government to trace the
family members of missing persons, whose addresses are not available
and also to ensure that those eligible persons who have not made
procedural compliances are assisted to make necessary compliance.
G The Committee will have to also monitor compliance with the directions
issued by this Court as regards payment of compensation to all categories
of victims.
23. In the affidavit of the State Government, a stand has been
taken that compensation has been paid to those whose houses/stalls/
huts were damaged or destroyed. Reliance is placed on the first
H
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 723
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Government Resolution. The Resolution provided for giving following A
assistance:
“Financial relief to the victims of bomb blasts in Mumbai city and
Mumbai suburbs on and after 12th March 1993.
1. Distress relief: - Every destitute person Rs. 250/-.
B
2. Grant for reconstruction of hut: - For each house of destroyed
hut: According to the extent of damage caused to the hut Rs.5000/
- whichever is less, grant should be given.
3. Renovation of houses: - For renovation of residential house,
along with subsidy of Rs.5,000/- and loan of Rs.10,000/-, a
maximum of Rs.15,000/- financial support. C
4. Repair of Houses: - for the sake of house repairs, Rs.6000/-
and Loan of Rs.5000/-, it means, grant of up to Rs.11000/-
maximum.
5. For destroyed stall and shops: - for Destroyed stalls, amount
should be given as subsidy equal to the cost of damage or a D
maximum of Rs.5000/-.
6. Assistance for ‘burnt carts’: - to the hand cart owners, whose
carts have been destroyed by fire should be given a subsidy of
Rs.2500/- each.
E
7. Compensation Amount of Rs.2 lakhs grant to relatives of
deceased persons:
8. A grant of Rs.25,000/- to a person with permanent disability.
9. To give subsidy of Rs.10,000/-to a person with temporary
physical disability. F
10. Assistance of Rs.5000/- for admitted more than 24 hours in
any private Hospital.
11. Medical aid for less than 24 hours hospitalization will be
Rs.1000/- or the exact expresses of the hospital which will less,
will be given as assistance. G
12. Rs.25,000/- financial assistance to the Taxi owners whose
vehicle is totally burnt.
13. To the surviving Rickshaw owners, Rs.13,000/- whose
rickshaw is totally burnt.”
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A 24. In the earlier affidavit of compliance of Shri Amitabh Gupta,
the State Government has not taken a stand that compensation in terms
of the first Government Resolution was paid to all the victims of the
1992 and 1993 riots who were eligible to receive the same. The State
Government was under an obligation to pay compensation to the eligible
victims within a reasonable period which can be taken as period of six
B
months from the dates of the respective Government Resolutions.
Therefore, the Committee will have to peruse the records to ascertain
whether compensation was paid to all eligible persons. The Committee
shall ensure that compensation is paid in terms of the first Government
Resolution to various categories of victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots.
C After examining records, if it is revealed that some of the victims have
not been paid compensation, the Committee formed as above, will have
to ensure that compensation is paid to the victims in terms of the first
Government Resolution by the State Government. The interest will have
to be paid to such victims who have not been paid compensation at the
rate of 9% from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of
D
the first Government Resolution till the date of payment of the
compensation amount.
25. Even as regards the payment of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs
to the legal heirs of 108 missing persons, the State Government will have
to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the expiry of the period of six
E months from 22nd July 1998 when the second Government Resolution
was issued.
26. Though as per the order dated 30th August 2022, the State
Government was expected to give details about the time lag between
the date of the incident and the date of payment of compensation, the
F State Government has avoided to furnish the material particulars and
only a vague statement has been made that compensation was paid in
terms of both the Government Resolutions between 1992 and 2010. This
statement shows that there was considerable delay in disbursing the
compensation amount. The State Government will have to provide all
the details expected to be furnished in terms of the order dated 30th
G August 2022 to the Committee. The Committee will find out the cases
where there has been a delay of more than six months in making payment
of compensation in terms of the first or the second Government
Resolutions, as the case may be. Interest at the rate of 9% from the
date of expiry of the period of six months from the dates of the relevant
H applicable Government Resolution till the date of actual payment will
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 725
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

have to be paid by the State Government. The Committee will have to A
decide the issue of entitlement to interest in terms of these directions.
We cannot allow the victims to suffer only because there was a delay in
the disposal of this writ petition. The Committee can always take the
help of the Para Legal Volunteers to reach the persons who have been
deprived of compensation and to render assistance to them to comply
B
with the formalities.
27. Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel made a fervent
plea for enhancing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the
same was inadequate. The quantum of compensation has been fixed
way back in the years 1993 in the context of the then prevailing situation.
There is no prayer made for enhancement of compensation in this writ C
petition of the year 2001. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to accede
to the prayer for grant enhancement after such a long passage of time.
28. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following
order.
i. There shall be a Committee headed by the Member D
Secretary of MSLSA to monitor the implementation of the
directions issued by this Judgment. The State Government
shall appoint a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of
Deputy Collector, and a Police Officer, not below the rank
of Assistant Commissioner of Police, who shall be the other E
two members of the Committee;
ii. The State Government shall submit to the Committee a
report containing details of 168 missing persons including
their names and addresses. The State Government will also
place material regarding efforts made to trace family
members of 108 missing persons who have been deprived F
of compensation in terms of the second Government
Resolution. The State Government shall make all possible
efforts to trace the legal heirs/family members of the missing
persons. The Committee shall monitor this exercise. The
Committee shall assist the legal representatives of the G
missing persons to complete the procedural formalities;
iii. The State Government shall also submit to the Committee
the record relating to compensation paid in terms of the
Annexure to the First Government Resolution as well as in
terms of the second Government Resolution by incorporating
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R.

A the specific dates on which the compensation was actually
paid to the persons entitled to it. The State Government
shall also provide a list of victims who have not been paid
compensation in terms of both the Government Resolutions;
iv. The State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs
B to the legal heirs of the missing persons traced out hereafter,
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 22nd January
1999 i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from
the date of the second Government Resolution, till actual
payment;
v. The Committee consisting of the Secretary of MSLSA and
C the other two Government Officers appointed under this
order, shall monitor the efforts of the State Government to
trace other victims who were entitled to compensation in
terms of the Annexure to the first Government Resolution
but compensation was not paid to them. The victims
D identified hereafter shall also be paid the compensation with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 8th January 1994
i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from the
date of the First Government Resolution, till actual payment;
vi. To those who were paid compensation after the expiry of
E the period of six months from the date of the applicable
Government Resolution, the State Government shall pay
interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of the
compensation payable from the expiry of the period of six
months from the date of the applicable Government
Resolution till the date of payment. This direction will apply
F to those who have received compensation before the date
of this Judgment. The Committee, after examining the
record, shall furnish to the State Government the details of
the victims who are entitled to receive interest as above;
vii. The State Government shall comply with the requirement
G of submitting necessary details as aforesaid to the
Committee within a period of two months from today.
Appointment of the two officers, as directed above, shall
be made within a period of one month from today. Both the
Government Officers shall coordinate with concerned
Departments and ensure that necessary details, as directed
H
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 727
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

by the Committee, are furnished to the Committee within A
the specified time of two months;
viii. The entire exercise of payment of compensation and/or
interest shall be completed by the State Government within
a period of nine months from today. The State Government
shall report compliance made from time to time to the B
Committee. A detailed report containing details of the
compliance of the directions as aforesaid shall be filed by
the Secretary of MSLSA with this Court within a period of
ten months from today;
ix. The Committee shall seek necessary guidance from the
Executive Chairperson of MSLSA for implementation of C
the directions issued by this order. The Committee shall be
entitled to seek the assistance of Para Legal volunteers;
x. The State Government shall provide details of the only
pending riot related criminal case before the Sessions Court
at Mumbai to the Registrar General of the Bombay High D
Court who shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Court
that the case needs to be disposed of at the earliest;
xi. The State Government shall provide details of 97 cases on
dormant files to the Registrar General of the Bombay High
Court within one month from today. On receipt of the E
details, the High Court on the Administrative side shall issue
necessary communication to the concerned Courts in which
the cases are pending to take necessary steps to trace the
accused. The State Government shall immediately constitute
a Special Cell to trace the absconding /missing accused in
these cases and to assist the concerned Courts so that the F
Trial can proceed against them; and
xii. The State Government shall expeditiously implement all the
recommendations made by the Commission on the issue of
reforms in the police force which were accepted by it.
29. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. A copy G
of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Member Secretary of MSLSA.

Ankit Gyan Writ petition disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

H