R.D. Upadhyay v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

Ajoy Ghosh, described as a “lunatic under-trial prisoner,” has been incarcerated since 1962. The Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 16 December 1999 recorded that, between 1964 and 1995, neither the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.) nor the jail authorities took any meaningful steps in his case. Medical treatment was provided only after intervention by the Calcutta High Court. The Court notes “complete violation” of the Prisons Act, 1894, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. At the time of this order, Ghosh is living in a Missionaries of Charity (Brothers) home at Kancharapara under the Supreme Court’s directions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether State authorities and judicial officers failed to comply with statutory duties under the Prisons Act, the CrPC and the Indian Lunacy Act in the prolonged detention and neglect of Ajoy Ghosh.

What interim relief or compensatory measures are appropriate in light of the State’s acknowledged failures.

What systemic guidelines and directions should be issued to prevent similar injustices to other detainees.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court expresses strong condemnation of the State’s prolonged inaction, observing that statutory provisions meant to protect mentally ill detainees were “respected in their breach.” It highlights:

Complete absence of medical or legal action between 1964 and 1995 despite Ghosh’s condition.

Lack of accountability even after the Supreme Court spotlighted the case.

The humanitarian service offered by the Missionaries of Charity, which agreed to care for Ghosh without charge.

The limited utility of monetary compensation to a person in Ghosh’s mental and physical state, yet the need to mark the Court’s disapproval of the State’s tortious conduct.

Balancing these factors, the Court opts for an interim donation rather than individual compensation, intending both to assist the charitable organisation and to register judicial censure of the State’s negligence. It also calls for written suggestions from counsel to frame future guidelines aimed at preventing similar violations.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court directs the State of West Bengal to donate Rs. 2,00,000 to Missionaries of Charity (Brothers), Howrah, within six weeks and to report compliance. The matter is adjourned for seven weeks to allow submission of suggestions for systemic guidelines.

Implications: The immediate effect is financial support for the institution caring for Ajoy Ghosh and judicial acknowledgment of State liability. The order signals possible future issuance of broad guidelines to safeguard similarly situated detainees but does not, at this stage, establish a new binding precedent.

R.D. Upadhyay v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.

ORDER

1. We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing as Amicus, assisted by Ms. Binu Tamta, learned Counsel and Mr. Tapas Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the state of West Bengal, assisted by Mr. H K Puri, learned Counsel.

2. In our order dated 16th December, 1999, we had traced the history of confinement of Ajoy Ghosh. From the report, submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 15th January, 2000, it clearly emerges that between the period 1964 and 1995, learned court of A.C.M.M. made no efforts to take any action in the case of the unfortunate lunatic undertrial prisoner Ajoy Ghosh languishing in jail since 1962. Even medical treatment was provided to him only after the High Court intervened. The A.C.M.M. as well as the Jail authorities had taken no action in that behalf. The Superintendent Presidency Jail, Calcutta even later on took no action to send medical reports of the physical and mental state of Ajoy Ghosh from 1964 to 1983 and thereafter till 1995. There may be many like Ajoy Ghosh languishing in West Bengal or other jails of the country. There has been a complete violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Prisons Act, 1990; the CrPC; and the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 in dealing with the case of Ajoy Ghosh. We are anguished. The authorities are required to act according to law but the law has been unfortunately respected in its breach. There has been no fixing of accountability even after this Court pointed out the existence of the sad state of affairs concerning Ajoy Ghosh. We shall revert to this aspect while finally disposing of this application.

3. We have suggested to learned Amicus as well as to the learned Counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal to file a submission/suggestion note for assistance of the Court to issue such guide-lines and directions as may be necessary for ensuring that the detenus like Ajoy Ghosh do not suffer in the manner in which Ajoy Ghosh has suffered.

4. For the time being, we find that Ajoy Ghosh, under the directions of this Court, has been accommodated in the Home maintained by Missionaries of Charity (Brothers) at Kancharapara. The letter from the Regional Superior, Br. Prem Anand M.C. of Missionaries of Charity dated 12th February, 2000 shows that they would take care of Ajoy Ghosh and their services would be completely free and that the State Government need not pay for his expenses. It is also noticed from that letter that Missionaries of Charity care for the poorest of the poor, the sick and dying destitutes irrespective of religion, cast, creed and colour, free of cost and they depend upon donations from generous persons.

5. We could have directed some interim compensation to be paid to Ajoy Ghosh but considering his present state of mental and physical health, that would not be of any avail. He has no known relatives either. We are conscious of the fact that money award can be calculated only to make good financial loss. It is not an award for the sufferings already undergone which are incapable of calculation in terms of money. Money compensation may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. Money award cannot, however, renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered due to callous attitude of others. All that the courts can do in such cases is to award such sums of money, which may appear to be giving of some reasonable compensation, assessed with moderation, to express court's condemnation of the tortious act committed by the State.

6. As an interim measure, we direct that a sum of Rs. two lacs shall be paid by the State of West Bengal to the Missionaries of Charity (Brothers), Howrah, by way of donation.

7. We make it clear that our direction is not to hurt the sentiments of the Missionaries of Charity expressed in their letter but in appreciation of it and this payment is not being made by way of expenses for taking care of Ajoy Ghosh but only with a view to assist the Missionaries of Charity to carry on with the good work that they are doing. Let the donation by the State be made within six weeks and this Court informed about it.

8. We adjourn this matter by seven weeks, during which period a submission/suggestion note may be filed.

559 Of 1994

R.D. Upadhyay v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

R.D. Upadhyay v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.

Comments