@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Bhargava, J.@mdashSmt. Srilata Swami-nathan (hereinafter referred to as Smt Srilata), District President of Rajasthan Kisan Sangthan, District Banswara, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court, dated 24th December, 1986; which was ordered to be registered as a writ petition on 5-1-1987 by the Hon''ble Chief Justice and it came up for orders before the Court on 12-1-1987, and Shri M. I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General took notice on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. Notices were also ordered to be issued to Babu, Lehrulal, SHO, P.S. Danpur, Abbey Singh, SHO, P.S. Thikaria, Ganpat Singh, SHO, P.S., Lohariya, Pukhraj Seervi, Supdt of Police, Banswara and Syed Mohd. Head Constable, and also to Collector, District Bhilwara. Thereafter, Shri G. K. Garg, appeared for the petitioner. It was further ordered that the reply should be filed within a week. Learned counsel for the State sought time on three occasions. Affidavits of Shri Pukhraj Seervi, Supdt. of Police, Banswara, Shri N. M Sharma, Dy. S. P. Banswara, Shri Lehru Lal SHO, P.S. Danpur, Abey Singh, SHO Thikaria, Banswara, Ganpat Singh, SHO, Lohariya, Banswara and Mohd. Syed, Head Constable, In charge Out Post, Ghori Tejpur, P.S. Danpur were filed on 21-1-1987.
2. Thereafter, the case again came up before the Court on 16-2-1987 and it was ordered that an affidavit should be filed in support of the petition and also of the two ladies viz., Sim. Takudi and Smt Saman, if possible. Additional Advocate General was further directed to file affidavit of the Superintendent, M. G. Hospital, Banswara as to whether the aforesaid ladies were treated in M. G. Hospital, Banswara as Indoor or Outdoor Patients on the aforesaid dates. The record of the M. G. Hospital was ordered to be kept ready for perusal
3. Another affidavit of Dy. S. P. Banswara, Dr. Jagdish Chandra, Medical Officer, In charge, M. G. Hospital, Banswara Dr. Anil Kumar, Medical Jurist, Bed Head Tickets of Smt Takudi and report of the Additional District Development Officer, Banswara were filed on 4-3-1987 along with an application for taking these documents on record. Affidavit in support of the petition of Mrs. Srilata was also filed on 20-3-1987, along with affidavits of two ladies and five other villagers, The State of Rajasthan filed another set of 14 affidavits on 31-3-87. Thereafter, the petition has come up for final hearing and arguments were heard on 15-5-87 and 18-5-87.
4. Smt. Srilata in her letter dated 24-12-1987 addressed to the Chief Justice had complained about the terror created by police in Banswara district against the Adivasi Harijans in hamlet Daba Pada, Village Kundal, Police Station Danpur, District Banswara. It has been mentioned in the petition that Ram Chandra resident of village Kundal along with others who were in Banswara jail, escaped from jail with 20 other detenus, and the police in their search went to the village and took several persons including two tribal women Smt. Takudi and Smt. Saman, in custody and kept them in illegal detention from 19-11-1986 to 22-11-1986, and again from 30-11-1986 to 3-12-1986 and tortured the two ladies, sexually molested and beat them brutally. The police is alleged to have put red-chilly powder in their vagina. Condition of Smt. Takudi was so bad that she had to be hospitalised. The police also wantonly damaged and broke the huts of other ten families on 16-11-1986. They also damaged the crop of the whole village.
5. Along with this letter, the District President, Smt Srilata also enclosed the signed statements of Smt. Takudi and Smt Saman, and a representation signed by a number of villagers. S/Shri Lehrulal, SHO, P.S. Danpur, Abhey Singh, SHO, P.S. Thikaria, Ganpat Singh, SHO, P.S. Lohariya, Mohd Syed, Head Constable, Ghori Tejpur Police Station, Danpur and Pukhraj Seervi, Supdt of Police, Banswara were specially named in that letter, who were alleged to be responsible for these illegal and ugly crimes and atrocities. Therefore, Smt. Srilata has prayed in this letter for appointment of a competent officer who is not in the police, to investigate the whole matter so that frightened people could return to their home; guilty could be brought to book and victims could get suitable compensation. A copy of this letter was also sent to the Cheif Justice, Supreme Court, Chairman, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Commission, Law Minister of Inida and Chief Minister of Rajasthan. Two clipps of the newspaper cuttings were also annexed with this letter addressed to the Chief Justice. Collector, Banswara has filed an affidavit that a complaint was filed before him by Smt. Srilata on or before 4th December, 1986 and he forwarded this report for necessary action to the Superintendent of Police, Banswara in original. The Supdt. of Police, Banswara has also filed an affidavit that he received the complaint from the District Magistrate, Banswara and immediately, ordered the Dy. Supdt. of Police, Shri Narendra Mohan Sharma, to enquire into the matter to ensure justice. Shri Narendra Mohan Sharma, Dy. Supdt. of Police has also filed an affidavit that he conducted the enquiry regarding the allegations levelled by Smt. Srilata in her letter to the District Magistrate and found all the allegations to be false, frivolous and motivated. A copy of the report dated 5-12-1986 in this matter has also been produced which has been marked as Ex. R-2. Both the Supdt. of Police and the Dy. Supdt. of Police in their respective affidavits have admitted that on 16-11-1986, combing operations of the jungle of village Kundal were organised for arresting Ramchandra who had escaped from Banswara Jail along with 20 other persons. They have further asserted that on that day, nobody was apprehended, arrested, tortured or confined nor any house was damaged nor crop was destroyed. A copy of the press statement issued by the Supdt. of Police, Banswara after receiving the report from the Dy. Supdt. of Police which was published in the Rajasthan Patrika, Udaipur Edition, has also been produced and marked as Ex. Rule 3. It has further been mentioned in the affidavit of the Dy. Supdt. of Police that on 12th October, 1986, 22 prisoners escaped from Banswara jail after snatching fire arms and injuring two Guards and Sentries on duty. One of them was Ramchander son of Jargi. Smt. Takuri is the mother of Ramchander while Smt. Saman is the sister of Ram Chander. Another son of Smt. Takuri namely Kamru had also escaped from Udaipur Jail and both Ramchander and Kamru were wanted by the police. On 16-11-1986, one of the wanted persons who had escaped, was arrested and he gave information to the-police that Ramchander and certain othes who had escaped were hiding near village Kundal. Therefore, the Supdt of Police, Banswara organised a combing operation of the Jungle on 16-11-1986 to search Ramchandra and others. The operation started at 12.15 noon and was closed at 11.30 in the night. The Dy. Supdt. of Police has also stated in his affidavit that one Ramji son of Gotiya Bheel had filed a complaint on 8-8-86 against the residents of Makanpur. Similar report was also received from Sarpanch, Makanpur. On the basis of these two complaints, a complaint u/s 107/116, Cr.P.C was filed against 30 persons of village Makanpur. A copy of the charge-sheet has also been enclosed and marked as Ex. R-1. After the letter had been received by the Chief Justice and registering as writ petition, the Additional Advocate General, Mr. M. I. Khan, suggested that an independent enquiry should be held and therefore, the Collector, Banswara requested Shri N. K. Jain, Additional District Development Officer, Banswara to conduct an independent enquiry in the whole matter, who examined several villagers and also seized the hospital record and submitted his report to the Collector, Banswara on 25-2-1987, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Ex. R-6.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. K. Garg has very vehemently argued that the administration has come out with a concocted story and mere denial on their part that no atrocities were committed, is not sufficient. Proper enquiry should be held either by the Central Bureau of Investigation or by an independent person appointed by this Court, who should come to a definite conclusion and thereafter, the guilty person should be punished and adequate compensation should be awarded to the villagers whose crop had been destroyed and the houses have been damaged. He has further submitted that even the administration has admitted that combing operations were held on 16-11-1986 and efforts were made to arrest Ramchander and others who had escaped from the jail and the police had visited the village on several occasions in their search and naturally, they must have interrogated a number of persons. Bed Head Ticket (Ex. R-4/5) of Smt. Takudi shows that she was admitted in the hospital on 20th November, 1986 at about 4 p.m. for hyper-tension and she had complained for giddiness and restlessness for the last 3-4 days. The fact that bed head ticket of Smt Takudi contains entry regarding a number of medicines given to her, including Tat Vac. injection, Thermophob Ointment cleaning and dressing of wounds with Soframycin Cream, shows she must have been given beating at the Police Station. Shri Anil Kumar who admitted her has stated on oath that she was brought to him in the Emergency Unit by her relative. Since her blood pressure was systolic, he diagnosed her illness as hyper-tension, and admitted her in the female medical ward. Neither she nor her relative complained to him anything, except restlessness and giddiness, nor she complained that she was either raped or violence practised upon her or red chilly powder was put in her private parts.
7. Dr. Jagdish Chandra Vaishnava, who was the Medical Officer In charge of the Medical Unit, in his affidavit has stated that Smt. Takudi gave him history of Insomania and loss of appetite and she was suffering from dehydration. After clinical examination, the doctor diagnosed her illness as Hypotension/Hypoglyoemia. He has further stated that she was discharged in the morning on 21st November, 1986. Smt. Takudi or any of her relative did not complain to him also about anything except giddiness and restlessness. She did not complain of rape or any violence practised against her or that chilly powder was put in her private parts. This affidavit and the bed head ticket create doubt about the illness and the manner in which she was treated.
8. The petitioner has also produced affidavits of Smt. Takudi and Smt. Saman, along with other five villagers but Mr. M.I. Khan, Additional Advocate General has in rebuttal, filed affidavit of Shri Raghunath Singh, Oath Commissioner, wherein he has stated that none of the 7 persons whose affidavits have been filed, in this Court, were present before him. Shri Pannalal who is the Secretary of the Rajasthan Kisan Sangthan came with these affidavits and asked him to verify them. Initially, he declined but Pannalal threatened him stating that he will get his licence cancelled, if he did not verify those affidavits and since, Shri Raghunath Singh was a newly appointed Oath Commissioner, he verified all those affidavits in the absence of the deponents. In support of his contention, Mr. Khan has also produced affidavit of Durga Shanker, another Oath Commissioner who was also approached by Panna Lal for getting verification of the affidavits done of all these persons. Since none of the deponents was present in person, he declined to verify those affidavits. The Administration has also produced affidavits of S/Shri Bapu s/o Rajiya Mahida, Ramji s/o Gotiya, Heera s/o Deoji, Nakooda s/o Lakma, Tejiya s/o Babji, Rakma s/o Bijiya, Bhiriya s/o Rama, Hamji s/o Gotiya, Hardas s/o Bhera, Roopa s/o Teliya, Kalu Ram s/o Bhogji, Kaluram s/o Dhulji and Smt. Deudi w/o Ramchandra, all residents of Kundal, who have stated that police personnel had visited their village for search and apprehension of Ramchander, Lachman and others who had escaped from jail but neither any house of any villager nor crop of any villager was damaged by the police nor any of the villagers were detained illegally or beaten by the police. It will be significant to note that affidavits in support of the petition by some of the villagers have also been filed.
9. Mr. Khan, Additional Advocate General has very vehemently submitted that the petitioner has no right to move such a petition and such matters do not fall into the category or scope of public interest litigation. Public interest litigation can be brought before the Court only by a voluntary organisation motivated only with the sole purpose of public interest litigation and not any political or other motive. Rajasthan Kisan Sangthan cannot fall in this category by any stretch of imagination, and the sole purpose of bringing such petition is to defame the administration, creating distrust in illiterate public, with a view to misguide them. Moreover, they are all disputed facts which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. It was open to the petitioner to have filed a report u/s 154, Cr.P.C. when it has been specifically provided that if any person is aggrieved by refusal on the part of an officer In charge of Police Station to record the information, he may send the substance of such information in writing by post to the Supdt. of Police concerned who, if satisfied, shall further investigate the case himself or direct investigation to be made by any other police officer. Here, nobody approached the police nor any efforts were made to get a case registered and therefore, there is no question of any refusal by police to record the information. A private complaint could have also been filed in the competent Court and if the report is not made very promptly or a complaint is not filed in a Court immediately, it is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the report was made late, affording sufficient time to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. He has further submitted that the prayer made by Smt. Srilata in her letter addressed to the Chief Justice has been fully complied with as the administration ordered for an enquiry by an independent person, i.e. Additional District Development Officer, who is not a police officer and therefore, nothing remains to be done further by this Court in this petition. If there was really any complaint against damage to the crop or to the nouses of the villagers, a suit could have been filed for damages and torturous act, against the State of Rajasthan for the action of individuals who are officers of the State. Moreover, no reliance can be placed upon the affidavits of those persons whose affidavits have been verified by the Oath Commissioner without the physical presence of the deponents before him.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a number of authorities in support of his contention that it is open for a voluntary organisation to bring public interest litigation before this Court and this Court has ample power to pass appropriate orders including compensation for the injuries and torturous acts of the police and also for the damage of crop and houses of the villagers. We shall deal the authorities very briefly hereunder.
11. In Vimla Bai v. Emperor AIR 1945 Nag 8 their Lordships while dealing with an application u/s 491 of the old Cr.P.C. observed that in the cases where liberty of a subject is at stake, the Government should place facts before the Court very frankly. No one can have quarrel about this proposition but in the present case, administration cannot be accused of concealing some facts. In fact, the administration has placed the material before, this Court very frankly.
12. In
13. In
14. In
15. In
16. In
17. In
18. In Sebastian v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1026 again the Supreme Court awarded exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lac for the illegal detention and wilful disobedience of the writ issued by the Supreme Court.
19. In
20. In
21. In
22. In
23. In
24.
25. In Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, : AIR 1987 SC 990, an Advocate being the General Secretary of Public Interest Law Service Society, Cochin brought the petition in public interest for banning import, manufacture, sale and distribution of certain drugs which were dangerous/injurious to public health. In this case, directions were issued to the Central Government to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and have the same referred to the Consultative Committee for immediate examination and decision.
26. In
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that on earlier occasion also, letter addressed by Mrs. Srilata Swaminathan, to a Judge of this Court was treated as a writ petition and relief was granted to the Social Work and Research Centre, Banswara, and the said judgment has been reported in
28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and also have gone through various affidavits produced before us on behalf of the petitioner as well as the administration.
29. It is admitted that one Ramchandra escaped from Banswara Jail along with several other prisoners and with a view to apprehend them, combing operations were organised by the District Police administration on 16-11-1986 in the jungles of village Kundal. Thereafter also, the police visited village Kundal for interrogation and investigation but the administration has specifically denied that they had illegally confined Mst. Takudi and Mst. Saman who were none else than the mother and sister respectively of Ramchander, nor they had tortured them nor that as a result of torture and manhandling, Mst. Takudi had to be admitted in the hospital.
30. From the evidence on record, it is obvious that the police must have made enquiries from these two ladies also and further that Mst. Takudi was admitted in the hospital on 20-11-1986 and was discharged next day on 21-11-1986. She was given vigorous treatment in the hospital before she was discharged on 21st Nov., 1986. It is not possible for us to come to a definite conclusion on the material placed before us that the Administration and particularly, the police illegally confined them or tortured these two ladies. Affidavits given by them cannot be taken into consideration as the Oath Commissioners filed counter-affidavits that they had verified these affidavits in the absence of the respective deponents. Shri Narendra Mohan Sharma, Dy. Supdt. of Police, made immediate enquiry and has stated that the police did not apprehend these two ladies nor they were mal-treated or tortured. During the pendency of this writ petition, an independent enquiry was also conducted by Shri N. K. Jain, Additional District Development Officer, Banswara who recorded the statements of some of the witnesses but he did not receive co-operation from the villagers or the persons who were really affected as they refused to get their statements recorded unless Smt. Srilata was present and he also could not come to a definite conclusion in this regard. It is true that a report could have been lodged before the police and if the Station House Officer of a particular Police Station had refused to record the report, a copy of the report could have been sent by post to the Superintendent of Police, and even then, if the police had given final report, a complaint could have been filed in the regular Criminal Court. But this was not done. It is also true that a suit could have been filed for compensation but if that has not been done and they have approached this Court, we cannot shut our eyes and reject this petition merely on the ground that the proper course was to file a report before the police or a complaint in the Court or to file a civil suit for compensation in the proper Court of law. We do not propose to discuss in detail the various authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner because the Supreme Court has observed in number of cases the scope of public interest litigation and the nature of relief that could the granted in such matters. We feel that whenever any illegality or atrocities or inaction is brought to the notice of High Court, it becomes duty of the High Court to look into the same, get the matter investigated and grant proper relief to the needy persons who are really oppressed, illiterate, uneducated and particularly in the present case, they being of tribal area. On the other hand, we do not want to encourage such sort of litigation, otherwise the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of-law instead of dispensing justice will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions and it is high time that some clear guidelines are laid down to outline the correct parameters of entertaining such petitions. Reference in this connection may be made to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987) 1 Serv LR 310.* It is now well settled that a person even during lawful detention is entitled to be treated with dignity befitting any human being and the mere fact that he has been detained lawfully does not mean that he can be subjected to ill-treatment, much less any torturous beating. The right to be treated even during lawful detention in a manner commensurate with human dignity is a well recognised right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and if it is found that the police has mal-treated any person in police custody which is not commensurate with human dignity, he is at least entitled to monetary compensation for the torturous act by the police.
31. Since on the material before us it is not possible for us to come to any definite conclusion whether any atrocities were committed by the police on the villagers of village Kundal and any torturous act on Smt. Takudi, we think it proper that a proper enquiry should be conducted by the Commissioner of the Region, and if on thorough enquiry, it is found that the police had committed atrocities or any torturous act, the Commissioner should further decide as to how much compensation, if at all, should be paid to the persons affected by such atrocities and torturous act. Our observations hereinabove will not affect the decision of the Commissioner. He need not be obsessed by our general observations made herein-above. This is very necessary with a view to inspire confidence in general public in a democratic set up. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to pass any order with regard to the costs in this case.
