Before the National Human Rights Commission
Sadar Patel Bhawan
New Delhi
Reference Case No. 1/97/NHRC
Date: 18 August, 2000
Reference made by the Supreme Court on Writ Petition No. 447/95 and 497/95
CORAM:
Justice Shri J.S. Verma, Chairperson
Dr. Justice K. Ramaswamy, Member
Shri Sudarshan Agarwal, Member
Shri Virendra Dayal, Member
PRESENT:
1. Shri Harish Salve, Solicitor General of India with
Shri R.V. Sinha, Advocate for Union of India
2. Shri R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate for NHRC
3. Ms. A. Choudhry, Under Secretary, Min. of Home, New Delhi
4. Shri Sarup Singh, Advocate for the State of Punjab
5. Shri Jayadeva Prasad, Dy. Legal Adviser, CBI
6. Shri S.P.S. Dutta, Dy. SP/CBI, New Delhi
7. Shr. R.K. Sharma, I.G.P. Litigation, Punjab
8. Shri Rajinder Singh, DIG, Police, Litigation, Punjab
9. Shri Mohinder Pal Trehan, Under Secretary (Home), Punjab
9. [sic] Shri Sudhir Walia, Advocate for Punjab Police
Proceedings
We have heard Shri Harish Salve, Solicitor General of India, on behalf of Union of India, Shri R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate for NHRC, Shri Sarup Singh, Advocate for the State of Punjab and Shri Sudhir Walia, Advocate for Punjab Police. The report prepared by Shri Venkataramani has been considered.
For this conclusion it does not matter whether the custody was lawful or unlawful or the exercise of power of control over the person was justified or not; and it is not necessary even to identify the individual officer or officers responsible/concerned.There are three categories of cases. One category relates to 23 cases. They do not fall within police districts Amritsar, Majitha and Taran Taran. The list of these cases is in Annexure “A” to the letter of Government of Punjab dated 17th January 2000. It is not disputed that these 23 cases do not fall within the purview of the present reference and, therefore, need not be gone into by the Commission. Accordingly, these 23 cases are excluded from consideration by the Commission. Intimation to the concerned claimants be given accordingly.
The second category of 18 cases which are required to be considered by the Commission for payment of compensation is shown in Annexure “C” in the above said letter. Their position is this:–
The material present in conjunction with the stand taken by the State Government, “that is has neither conducted any detailed examination in these cases on merits nor does it admit its liability in these matters but it offers payment of compensation in accordance with its policy contained in letter dated 29 August, 1995 with a view to settle the matter as also in view of the suggestion of the NHRC,” alone is sufficient to render the State Government liable for payment of compensation on the above basis. For this conclusion it does not matter whether the custody was lawful or unlawful or the exercise of power of control over the person was justified or not; and it is not necessary even to identify the individual officer or officers responsible/concerned.
The third category comprises 47 claims shown in Annexure “B”. It is necessary to scrutinize them according to the settled principles for the award of compensation in such cases. Learned counsel will help the learned Amicus Curiae in the scrutiny of these cases according to their convenience and a report of the outcome of the scrutiny will be submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae within three months to enable the Commission to proceed further in the matter.
It would be appropriate that determination of the quantum of compensation payable in the above 18 cases and any other cases out of the remaining 47 claims in which the claim is found to be justified is done at one time after the scrutiny of these 47 cases is complete.
We also consider it appropriate that the decision on the dispute relating to the liability for payment of compensation between the Government of India and the State Government be left open for consideration, should that dispute survive, at the end of the proceedings after determination of the quantum of compensation in each case. We would like to reiterate that this dispute between the Government of India and the State Government on the question of liability for payment of compensation would better be left open for decision in an appropriate case and in the present case we do hope even now that some workable solution is found between the two Governments themselves.
