Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi

A nine year old boy, Naresh, died after being beaten and thrown down by a Station House Officer and others while trying to protect his mother during an eviction dispute in Delhi. A women's organisation filed a writ petition. The Supreme Court held the Delhi Administration liable and ordered Rs 75,000 compensation to the mother.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre, through Ms. Nalini Bhanot — petitioner; a women's and civil rights organisation that filed on behalf of two women.

Kamlesh Kumari — one of the two women; the mother of Naresh, who lived in a room on the ground floor of house No. 408/5/A L, Gali No. 29, Anand Parbat.

Maya Devi — the second woman, who lived in another room on the same floor.

Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters — respondent No. 1; filed a counter-affidavit through Kanwaljit Deol, Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Delhi Administration — respondent No. 2; held liable to pay compensation.

Medical Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital — respondent No. 4, impleaded by order of 13 June 1988.

Shambu Dayal, Puran Prakash, Lal Singh (S.H.O.) and Shyam Lal (Sub-Inspector) — the alleged landlords and police officers, as the source prints "Puran Prakash" (the facts also name Puran Chand and Prakash Chand), impleaded by order of 20 September 1988. They filed counter-affidavits.

Procedural History

1. The writ petitions, Nos. 250-53 of 1988, were filed under Article 32 (Ray, J.).
2. On 13 June 1988 the Court directed the Medical Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, to be impleaded as respondent No. 4. It directed him to keep Naresh's records in a sealed cover and deposit them with the Registrar within two weeks (Ray, J.).
3. By order of 22 August 1988, the respondents got two weeks to file counter-affidavits, and the petitioners one week thereafter for a rejoinder (Ray, J.).
4. By order of 20 September 1988, the landlords and the police officers Lal Singh and Shyam Lal were impleaded. They filed counter-affidavits (Ray, J.).
5. The Court (B.C. Ray and S.R. Pandian, JJ.; judgment by Ray, J.) disposed of the petitions on 14 December 1989 (Ray, J.).

Facts

1. Kamlesh Kumari and her husband Inder Singh moved into the house in 1974. They had three children: Saroj, 13, Naresh, 9 (now deceased) and Suresh, 7. Maya Devi lived in another room. The husbands of both women were truck drivers who were often away (Ray, J.).
2. The ownership of the house was disputed. Around 1984 the old landlord, Tajinder Singh, left, and Manohar Lal claimed to be the new landlord. Puran Chand and his sons Shambu Dayal and Prakash Chand claimed to have bought it, and evicted all tenants except the two women (Ray, J.).
3. Kamlesh Kumari obtained a stay against forceful eviction, which was in force. In October 1987 the alleged landlords cut off the water and electricity to her room (Ray, J.).
4. On 2 November 1987 the S.H.O., Lal Singh, called her and told her to vacate. On 4 November 1987 he called her again, with the landlords present, and told her to take money and leave. On 12 November 1987 he threatened to lock her up (Ray, J.).
5. On 13 November 1987 she went to Tis Hazari Court to consult her lawyer. On return she found her children missing, and Maya Devi's belongings thrown out. Maya Devi told her that Sub-Inspector K.L. Nanda had taken the children (Ray, J.).
6. The S.H.O. said the children were locked up and she would not see them unless she vacated. Her lawyer phoned the Police control room and got the three children released with great difficulty (Ray, J.).
7. That evening Shambu Dayal trespassed into her room and hit her on the forehead with a brick. The police had her medically examined but refused to act against the assailants (Ray, J.).
8. On 14 November 1987 Shambu Dayal, Prakash Chand, Lal Singh in civilian clothes, Sham Lal in uniform and two others attacked her. They beat her, tore her clothes and molested her (Ray, J.).
9. Her nine year old son clung to her to protect her. Lal Singh took him away and forcibly threw him on the floor. Lal Singh asked Shambu Dayal to beat Naresh (Ray, J.).
10. She was dragged to the police station, and a criminal case of trespass was imposed on her. She was sent to Tihar Jail, and her lawyer got her released on 16 November 1987 (Ray, J.).
11. On release she found Naresh in a very bad condition. Neighbours got local doctors, and on their advice Naresh was admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 18 November 1987. No medico-legal case was registered (Ray, J.).
12. Her lawyer tried to get a case registered. It was registered on 23 November 1987 at 11.30 p.m. by the ACP, Patel Nagar. In FIR No. 143/87 (the affidavit dates it 24 November 1987) the ACP wrote that she said no policeman had beaten her son, though she had named Lal Singh and others (Ray, J.).
13. Naresh died in hospital on 26 November 1987, and an inquest was held. The news was published in Hindi newspapers. On the day of his death Kamlesh Kumari, her neighbours and her lawyer sat on dharna outside the Lt. Governor's residence and demanded a judicial enquiry into his death (Ray, J.).
14. On 6 December 1987 the Crime Branch filed a report opposing bail for Shambu Dayal. It said the D.D. entries in the bail application showed conspiracy or connivance of the local police with the accused (Ray, J.).
15. On 10 December 1987 the S.D.M., Vipul Mittra, called Kamlesh Kumari to his office for an enquiry into Naresh's death. (Ray, J.).
16. The Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights fact-finding report was published. It said the S.D.M. told them his report was sensitive and could be made public only by the Lt. Governor. He had earlier said he would intimate them his findings. Sham Lal and Shyam Lal are both printed in the source for the Sub-Inspector (Ray, J.).
17. The petitions prayed, among other things, for directions to pay Kamlesh Kumari exemplary damages for her son's death (Ray, J.).
18. The Deputy Commissioner of Police's affidavit said FIR No. 143 dated 24 November 1987 was registered under Section 308/34 IPC, and Shambu Dayal was arrested on 24 November 1987. The autopsy doctor said the injuries were ante-mortem and possibly not sufficient to cause death, and death was due to pneumonitis. The offence was changed to Section 304/34 IPC (Ray, J.).
19. It said Maya Devi lived next to Kamlesh Kumari for 6-7 months, and no rent receipt was issued. It said on 13 November 1987 the landlord forcibly got her room vacated with the connivance of the local police, as the D.D. entry made by Assistant Sub-Inspector Kishan Lal showed (Ray, J.).
20. It said Shambu Dayal got a false case under Section 448 IPC (printed as 4448 in the source) registered on 14 November 1987, and the police arrested Kamlesh Kumari that day. She was not admitted to bail despite approach by her relatives. Assistant Sub-Inspector Kishan Lal visited the spot on the information of a quarrel. The S.H.O. himself took part in the beatings, and Naresh was thrown away while he clung to his mother's feet (Ray, J.).
21. It said Naresh got severe injury to his left leg and could not be attended by the doctors in the absence of his parents. His mother attended him only on 16 November 1987, by when the child had suffered from old ailments. She took him to R.M.L. Hospital on the local doctors' advice. The injuries caused fever and pneumonitis and resulted in death. The leg injury was later opined to be grievous (Ray, J.).
22. The Crime Branch report of 5 December 1987 by Inspector Puran Singh said there was a high level conspiracy to get the tenants vacated. It said bail would affect the case since the local police were involved, and it was a clear case under Section 304/120B IPC (Ray, J.).
23. The headnote (not part of the judgment text) summarises the case. The child suffered severe injuries and died in hospital, and a medico-legal case was registered. The Inspector of the Crime Branch investigated and submitted a report of a high level conspiracy of the police with the accused in getting the rooms occupied by the women vacated. He opposed bail as a clear case under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (headnote).
24. The headnote adds that the counter-affidavit for respondent No. 1 said the Station House Officer himself took part in the beatings and the minor child was not spared. The child sustained severe injury in the left leg, opined to be grievous. The injuries caused fever and pneumonitis, resulting in death. A case under Sections 308/34, later altered to 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered and one accused arrested (headnote).

Issues Raised

The judgment does not frame issues. These questions are drawn from its reasoning.

1. Did Naresh die because of beating and assault by police officers, acting through the agency of the State?
2. Is the State liable to pay compensation for the tortious acts of its employees?
3. What amount should be paid, and by whom?

Arguments Contended

For the petitioners (Mr. Govind Mukhoty and Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya), as the petition's case:

• The two women were severely beaten by the alleged landlord in collusion with the S.H.O. and police of Anand Parbat Police Station, in an attempt to get their rooms vacated.
• The petitioners prayed for a direction that the respondents pay Kamlesh Kumari exemplary damages for the death of her son.

For the respondents (Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Ms. A. Subhashini and Mr. R.B. Mishra): the judgment records only the counter-affidavit of the Commissioner of Police (through Kanwaljit Deol) and says the landlords and the officers also filed counter-affidavits. It does not set out their contents.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment is by B.C. Ray, J. for the Bench of B.C. Ray and S.R. Pandian, JJ. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so each step ends with the judge's name.

Ray, J. (for the Bench)

The evidence

1. Noted: The petitions were filed by Saheli on behalf of two women who were beaten by the alleged landlord in collusion with the S.H.O., Lal Singh, and the police of Anand Parbat Police Station. (Ray, J.)
2. Noted: The Court sets out the facts, the Crime Branch report, the newspaper and dharna events and the counter-affidavit of the Commissioner of Police. (Ray, J.)
3. Held: It is apparent from the report of 5 December 1987, the counter-affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner and the launch of the prosecution that Naresh was done to death by beating and assault. (Ray, J.)
4. Held: The beating was by "the agency of the sovereign power acting in violation and excess of the power vested in such agency". (Ray, J.)
5. Held: The mother, Kamlesh Kumari, is entitled to compensation for her son's death from respondent No. 2, the Delhi Administration. (Ray, J.)

Liability of the State

1. Held: An action for damages lies for bodily harm, which includes battery, assault, false imprisonment, physical injuries and death. (Ray, J.)
2. Held: In assault, battery and false imprisonment, "the damages are at large and represent a solatium for the mental pain, distress, indignity, loss of liberty and death". (Ray, J.)
3. Held: Naresh, aged 9, died due to beating and assault by the S.H.O., Lal Singh, so his mother is entitled to damages. (Ray, J.)
4. Held: It is well settled that "the State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees". The Delhi Administration is liable for compensation for the death from the beating by the S.H.O. of Anand Parbat Police Station. (Ray, J.)
5. Noted: Joginder Kaur v. The Punjab State and Ors. ([1969] ACJ 28 at 32) observed that the State is liable for tortious acts committed by its employees in the course of their employment. (Ray, J.)
6. Noted: The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr. ([1962] Supp 2 SCR 989 at 1007) said the State should be as liable for a tortious act of its servant within the scope of his employment as any other employer. (Ray, J.)
7. Noted: Vidhyawati said the immunity of the Crown in the United Kingdom rested on the old feudalistic notion that the King could do no wrong and could not be sued in his own courts. In India, since the East India Company, the sovereign has been held liable in tort or contract, and "the Common Law immunity never operated in India". (Ray, J.)
8. Noted: In People's Union for Democratic Rights through its Secretary and Anr. v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and Anr. (Writ Petitions Crl. Nos. 401-402 of 1988, orders pronounced on 13 January 1989), a labourer taken to a police station was beaten and died. The State was held liable, and the family was awarded Rs 75,000. (Ray, J.)

Amount and safeguards

1. Held: On a conspectus of these decisions, it is just and proper to direct the Delhi Administration, respondent No. 2, to pay Kamlesh Kumari, mother of Naresh, Rs 75,000 within four weeks of the judgment. (Ray, J.)
2. Held: The Delhi Administration may take appropriate steps to recover the amount paid, or part of it, from the officers found responsible, if so advised. (Ray, J.)
3. Held: The police officers are not parties before the Court. Any observation made in justification of this order shall not bear on any proceedings, especially the criminal prosecution pending against the police officials over Naresh's death. (Ray, J.)
4. Held: The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (Ray, J.)

Authorities

• Joginder Kaur v. The Punjab State and Ors. ([1969] ACJ 28 at 32): the State is liable for tortious acts committed by its employees in the course of their employment. Relied on (Ray, J.).
• The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr. ([1962] Supp 2 SCR 989 at 1007): the State is liable in tort like any other employer, and the Crown's common law immunity never operated in India. Relied on (Ray, J.).
• People's Union for Democratic Rights through its Secretary and Anr. v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and Anr. (Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 401-402 of 1988, orders of 13 January 1989): compensation of Rs 75,000 for a labourer beaten to death in a police station. Followed (Ray, J.).
• Names as spelt in the source text: Peoples Union for Democratic Rights through its Secretary and Anr. v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and Anr.; The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr.; Joginder Kaur v. The Punjab State and Ors.; Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre, through Ms. Nalini Bhanot v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Head-quarters and Ors. (the case title).

Provisions mentioned

• Article 32, Constitution: the writ jurisdiction under which the petitions were filed.
• Section 302, Section 120B, Section 304, Section 308, Section 34 and Section 448, Indian Penal Code (printed as 4448 in the source): offences mentioned in the reports and affidavits. Section 302 appears only in the headnote, while the quoted Crime Branch report says Section 304/120B. They are murder, criminal conspiracy, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempt to commit culpable homicide, common intention, and house-trespass; the judgment names the sections without their text (headnote and affidavits).

Judgement

1. The Delhi Administration, respondent No. 2, must pay Rs 75,000 as compensation to Kamlesh Kumari, mother of Naresh, within four weeks of the judgment.
2. The Delhi Administration may take appropriate steps to recover the compensation, or part of it, from the officers found responsible, if so advised.
3. Observations in the judgment do not bear on any proceedings against the police officials, especially the pending criminal prosecution.
4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Legal Principle / Ratio

The State is liable in tort for the acts of its employees, and the Delhi Administration must pay compensation for a death caused by police officers. The petition was under Article 32, but the Court does not discuss that remedy separately. The Court held that "the State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees" and ordered Rs 75,000 to be paid to the mother, with liberty to recover from the officers found responsible.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The finding rests on the police's own records. The Court relied on the Crime Branch report, the Deputy Commissioner's counter-affidavit and the launch of a prosecution. It did not hold a trial, and it kept its observations apart from the pending criminal case.

The cause of death was not settled. The autopsy doctor said the injuries were not sufficient to cause death, and death was due to pneumonitis. The affidavit said the injuries caused fever and pneumonitis. The Court held that the child died due to the beating.

The sum follows an earlier case. The Court fixed Rs 75,000, as in the earlier People's Union for Democratic Rights order. The judgment does not explain how it reached that figure otherwise.

Significance

• The Court awarded compensation in a petition under Article 32, on the basis that the State is responsible for the torts of its employees.
• It quoted Vidhyawati for the statement that the Crown's common law immunity never operated in India.
• It let the State recover the compensation from the responsible officers.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: a nine year old boy died after police officers and landlords beat him during an eviction dispute. The Court awarded Rs 75,000 to his mother.
• Rule: the State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees, and damages for battery and assault are at large.
• Rule: the Crown's common law immunity never operated in India (Vidhyawati).
• Trap: the compensation is payable by the Delhi Administration, with liberty to recover from the officers. The criminal case is unaffected.
• Directions: Rs 75,000 within four weeks.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.