- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Through Its Hony. Secretary v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arose from an application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, based on information published in the Illustrated Weekly of India (July 2, 1989), alleging inhumane behaviour toward a person in police custody.
Upon notice, the Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police, Jamalpur (State of Bihar) filed an affidavit describing an incident in which Mahesh Mahto was injured after passengers beat several persons following a looting incident by a crowd. Mahesh Mahto sustained serious injuries and required hospital treatment. Due to lack of transport, a rickshaw was hired; by then he had become unconscious, and a Havaldar tied him with a rope to the footboard of the rickshaw. The counter-affidavit accepted that timely treatment was not provided and stated that, had proper attention been given, Mahesh Mahto could perhaps have been saved. Disciplinary proceedings were stated to have been initiated against the Havaldar. Since the first affidavit was considered insufficient by the Court, a further affidavit was filed along with the post-mortem report after Mahesh Mahto died.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts placed on record, the State of Bihar was liable to pay compensation for the death of Mahesh Mahto attributable to negligence in custody, including failure to provide timely medical care.
- What obligations the police owe to a person taken into custody with respect to protection and provision of medical care where needed.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the affidavits filed on behalf of the State and expressed surprise that the State had not taken as serious a view of the matter as the facts warranted. It noted that, as indicated in the Deputy Superintendent’s affidavits, if appropriate attention and timely medical care had been provided, the victim’s life could perhaps have been saved.
The Court attributed the death to the negligence of the Havaldar and emphasized the duty of the police, particularly after taking a person into custody, to ensure appropriate protection of that person, including providing medical care if required.
On this basis, and taking note of the facts and circumstances on the record, the Court considered it appropriate to award monetary compensation and structured a mechanism for disbursement through the District Judge to ensure payment to the rightful legal representatives/heirs.
Holding and Implications
COMPENSATION DIRECTED: The Court directed the State of Bihar to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 to the legal representatives of Mahesh Mahto.
The amount was ordered to be deposited with the District Judge, Munger, who was directed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the heirs of the deceased and to disburse the compensation to them. The District Judge was also given discretion to place the amount in a long-term fixed deposit in favour of the rightful heir(s) if deemed appropriate.
The State was required to furnish a compliance report to the Registry of the Supreme Court within three months. The opinion, as provided, states only the direct remedial consequence for the parties and does not indicate that any broader or new precedent was set.
Order
1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee alleging on the basis of information published in the Illustrated Weekly of India of July 2, 1989 inhumane behaviour meted out to a person in police custody. On notice being issued an affidavit was filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police, Jamalpur within the State of Bihar narrating the details of the incident in which the victim Mahesh Mahto had been injured when the passengers of a railway train where looting had been done by a crowd had beaten up several persons including the victim. Mahesh had received serious injuries and had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. As no transport was available a rickshaw was hired for the purpose of removing the injured to the hospital. By then the injured had become unconscious and the Havaldar tied him with rope to the footboard of the rickshaw. The counter-affidavit accepts the position that no timely treatment was provided to the injured. Had proper attention been given the injured could perhaps have been saved from the clutches of death. It appears that disciplinary proceedings has been taken against the delinquent Havaldar. Since this affidavit was not considered sufficient by this Court, a further affidavit was filed along with a copy of the post-mortem report after the victim died.
2. We are surprised that the State has not considered it appropriate in the facts and circumstances appearing in the record to take a serious view of the matter as it deserved. As the affidavits of the Deputy Superintendent indicate if appropriate attention had been given and timely medical care had been provided the life of the victim could perhaps have been saved. It is the negligence of the Havaldar that has led to the death. It is the obligation of the police particularly after taking a person in custody to ensure appropriate protection of the person taken into custody including medical care if such person needs it.
3. Taking note of the facts and circumstances appearing on the record, we direct that the compensation of Rs 20,000 — such a sum is ordinarily paid in the case of death — shall be paid by the State of Bihar to the legal representatives of Mahesh Mahto. The amount shall be deposited with the District Judge, Munger and the District Judge is directed to institute a proper inquiry to satisfy himself as to who the heirs of the deceased Mahesh Mahto are. The amount of Rs 20,000 shall be paid to them by the District Judge and in case he is of the view that the money should be held in a long term fixed deposit in favour of the rightful heir it is open to him to do so. A compliance report of this direction be furnished to the Registry of this Court within three months.
Alert