AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.C. Das, J.—This matter has been placed in view of the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in Habeas Corpus application which was registered in this Court as Civil Rule (HC) No. 923/81/18/82 and disposed of on 10.9.82 by a Division Bench of this Court. The facts leading to the aforesaid Habeas Corpus petition may be stated herein below:
The Petitioner Naosam Ningol Chandam, Ongbi Nengshitombi Devi is the wife of Shri Chaoba Singh who was arrested by some personnel of the 5th Bn. CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) on 10.1.81 at about 7.30 P.M. from her residence. As Chaoba Singh did not return even by 22.2.81, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operation) to heighten her about the where abouts of her husband. There was no reply to the request of the Petitioner. Thereafter when all efforts to know the whereabout of the Petitioner''s husband failed she filed the aforesaid Habeas Corpus application in this Court. The Commandant 5th Bn. CRPF who is a party Respondent in the said Civil Rule advanced his case to the effect that on the night between 13th and 14th of January 1981, Chaoba Singh had been arrested and bad been released on 14.1.81 at about 5.30 P.M. After submission of return by the other Respondents the matter was heard by this Court and accordingly disposed of on 10.9.82. The main dispute was about the release of Chaoba Singh. After prolonged hearing for three days this Court allowed the petition with certain directions to be complied with by the Respondents. In paragraph 10 of the judgment where I was also a party to the judgment the following direction was issued:
The question now is about the appropriate order to be passed or the appropriate writ to be issued on the above facts. This aspect has troubled us at it had done the learned Judges of the Kerala High Court in what is commonly known as T.V. Eachara Varier Vs. Secretary to the Ministary of Home Affairs and Others, Having come to the conclusion that Choaba Singh was really not released, we can think only three alternatives as to what might have happened with him-(1) he is still in custody; (2) he escaped from custody, or (3) he is dead. Of these we shall rule out the second, as, if be would have escaped, Respondent No. 4 would have said so and Chaoba would have, in all probability, go in touch with the member of his family. Of the two situations left, as taking into custody is admitted it may be presumed that Chaoba Singh has continued in custody. In such a contingency the issue of writ of habeas corpus presents no problem. But, if Chaoba Singh had died while in custody or even afterwards; writ of habeas corpus would have no meaning. It is, however, nobody''s case that Chaoba Singh is dead, though Shri Kula Singh had hinted about it in his Assembly questions. So, we are left with no alternative, as presently advised except to come to the conclusion that he continues in custody. In such a situation we will be falling in our duty if we were not to issue the writ as prayed for. If for any reason it would not be possible for the Respondents to comply with this writ, it would be open to them to ex-pair to this Court with better evidence as to why they are unable to do so. Though this is an usual order we of have passed, but on the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think if we could have done anything else.
Mr. L. Nanda Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that inspite of direction issued by bi Court the Respondents could not explain with any evidence about their inability to comply with the direction to produce Chaoba Singh Therefore, present position is that Chaoba Singh could not be produced by the Respondents in Court nor they could furnish any satisfactory explanation till today. It is, therefore, apparent that the concerned Respondents have failed to produce Chaoba Singh and have eventually expressed their in ability to do so. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Chaoba Sing was taken into custody by the personnel of Respondent No. 4 (Commandant 5th Bn. CRPF) who did not even produce him to the nearest police station. There was no mat to proce in any manner against Chaoba Singh. Will it not be considered as high-handed action play with the personal liberty of a citizen against the established principles of law and statute.
Law has generally been considered to be a closeally of liberty. It constitutes meaning of fostering personal freedom, safeguarding human rights, social goal of equality and gone at welfare. If �Rule of Law� exits in the country, everything must done according to law. It requires that every authority, either in the State or the Centre if takes an action which in fringes a man�s liberty it must be able to justify its action as authorised by law, by Act and statutes, Central or State. The preamble of our Constitution speaks about justice, social, economic and po1itical. Manu, one of our ancient law gives stated- �Justice being destroyed will destroy, being preserved will preserve. It must never, therefore, be violated.�
Now it emerges from what we have stated above that curtailment of a right of liberty of a citizen must be supported by any authority of law or by established principle of law, Act and statute, The Court cannot overlook any excess in application of law which effects the liberty of a citizen. It must be on a reasonable ground and must undergo the test of objective satisfaction of the authority detaining a citizen in curtailment of the personal liberty. We would like to reiterate another facet that the services of the brave armed forces are normally requisitioned for maintenance of law and order when there is disturbed and serious condition endangering the life and properly of the citizens and that too in aid of the civil power.
Mr. L. Nanda Kumar Singh, learned Counsel has, however very fairly at that be has instruction from his client to urge only one point as it would be futile efforts for the Petitioner to insist further for production of Chaoba Singh whose face could not be seen by any of his family members since he was arrested and taken into custody of 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. The sole point that have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petition is for award of an exemplary cost against the concerned Respondent in the light of the decision rendered by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India as reported in AIR 1984 SC 1026. The facts of the aforesaid case of the Suprcn Court is a1so of the same nature were their Lordships directed the concerned Respondents to produce the detena and in their fail to do so, instead of imposing fine directed for payment of examplary cost to the Petitioner. The learned Counsel has Submitted that in the light of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court the wife of Chaoba Singh may be compensated failure for failure of Respondents to comply with the order rendered by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Rule (HC) No. 923/81/18/82 and has further submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) would be a moderate compensation which may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner, It must not be most sight of that since 1981 the Petitioner, the wife of Chaba Singh and other members of their family have suffered petitital(sic) agony, physical torture for the loss of his company and hancial hardship due to lack of earning member in the family. It is true that the mental agony and physical torture cannot Compensated by money value nor the loss of a valuable (sic) yet the Petitioner has put forward her grievance to compensate her by awarding a reasonable amount of compensation her favour with a direction to the Respondents to pay the (sic) jointly or severally as the case may be within a period may be prescribed by Court.
We have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel the Respondent No. 4 and also Mr. R. Kakti learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel representiog the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. A fair submission has been made by Mr. Muzumdar to the effect that since shri Chaoba Singh was arrested on 10.1.81 by some personnel of the 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. from his residence and inspite of direction he could not be produced in Court, it would be �absolutely �futile attempt to afford further opportunity to conduct any enquiry in this regard which in fact would not serve any purpose. It is further submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that there cannot be any dispute at any level with regard to the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court as referred to above an if the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is applicable in this ease, this Court is competent to pass necessary order in that regard. The submission is not only fair but equally reasonable. However, the facto and circumstances of the present case is the sole factor to be considered by this Court to see whether the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court is attracted and applicable in this case also. The next submission of Mr. Muzumdar is very attractive also on the humanitarian point of view that the wife of Chaoba Singh and his children are deprived of the company of Cbaoba Singh since 1981 and he could not return to his house after be was arrested. This factor also cannot be lost sight of from the view point of the Court�s considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner for awarding suitable compensation to the Petitioner.
Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned Advocate General of Manipur who represents the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 has vehemently argued that since Shri Chaoba Singh was arrested by the personnel of 5th Bu. C.R.P.F. and that battalion not being under the direct operational control of the Government of Manipur, the Respondent No. 1 and 5 to 9 are not at all responsible nor they are, liable, to pay any compensation, if awarded by this Court in the tight of the decision of the Supreme Court. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General that under notification issued from time to time the Government of Manipur sought for help from the Central Government�s Reserve Police Force to aid the civil authorities for maintaining low and order in the State, but for any act of omission or commission of C.R.P.F. the Government of Manipur cannot share any responsibility. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate Qenera1 Manipur that 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. was to render help to the civil authorities, but under the direct operational control of 61 Mtn. Brigade Referring to paragraphs 7.1 and 9 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 the learned Advocate General has submitted that these answering Respondents have categorically stated that the 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. was under the operational control of 61 Mtn. Brigade at the relevant time and in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition it has been category cally stated that an enquiry was made from all the C.R.P.F. Battation which were then under the operational control of the Inspector General of Police, Manipur and further reference was made to the commander 61 Mta. Brigade under whom the 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. was operating Therefore, according to the learned Advocate General that inspite of efforts made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to 6 they could not get any trace of Chdoba Snigh who was stated to be released by 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. as there was no evidence against him relating to any offence stated to have been committed by him. According to the learned Advocate General for any action taken by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relating to the arrest of Chaoba Singh, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 are not at all responsible nor they can be saddled with any liability in this regard. Referring to the aforesaid decision in Sebastian M. Hongray (supra) the learned Advocate General has submitted that though the State of Manipur was a party in that case their Lordships did not make it liable as because the State of Manipur was not directly or indirectly involved for the arrest of the Petitioner by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the said case.
Mr. R.P. Kakati, learned Addi. Central Government Standing Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that no responsibility, can be shouldered by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as they had no direct contact nor any hand to lay in arresting Shri Chaoba Singh for any subsequent course.
On overall consideration of the submissions made by he the respective learned Counsel of the Respondents and is considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opining that the case at hand is squarely covered by the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Seba-(sic)tion M. Hongray (supra). When the facts are almost similar in nature why the principle laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court should not be applied? We are bound to follow the principle laid, down in the aforesaid case. On careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, of the case and keeping in view the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sebastian (supra), our considered view is that without going further into the details of the matter as suggested by the learned Counsel for, the Petitioner being instructed by his client, we dispose of the matter by simply awarding a reasonable, compensation of rupees two lacs to the Petitioner for failure of the Respondents to produce Chaoba Singh in Court and also for failure to with direction of this Court to furnish better evidence why they could not produce Chaoba Singh. The next question now arises on whom the direction would be issued for payment of compensation. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General Manipur that since Chaoba Singh was arrested by the personnel of 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. under the command of Respondent No. 4 and since Respondent No. 4 is under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, the Union of India is to share the responsibility to make payment of compensation. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General which could got be denied by Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 that Union of India is sufficiently represented by Respondent No. 4. If that be the position then for act of omission or commission of Respondent No. 4, the Union of India would be liable to share the responsibility. We accordingly, direct the Union of India through Respondent No. 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the Petitioner Naosam Ningol Chandam Ougbi Nengshitombi Devi within a reasonable period preferably within 4 month from today.
A question was posed about the nature of the further steps to the taken. As suggested by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner we do not like to take up any further step in this regard except awarding compensation to the Petitioner.
With this observation and direction we finally dispose of the petition.