http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: PEOPLES’ UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/12/1986

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  355            1987 SCR  (1) 631  1987 SCC  (1) 265        JT 1987 (1)    18  1986 SCALE  (2)1093

ACT:     Constitution   of   India,   1950,    Art.    32--Police firing--Some    persons    killed   and    several    others injured--Payment of compensation-Necessity for.     Public Interest Litigation--Police firing--Some  persons dying    and    several    others    injured--Payment     of compensation--Necessity of.

HEADNOTE:     The petitioner-an organisation, said to be committed  to the  upholding of fundamental rights of citizens,  filed  an application  under Article 32 of the  Constitution  alleging that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26  deci- mals  of low lying land at Arwal between members of  a  rich Rajak  family on one side and members of nine poor  families on the other; and that on April 19, 1986, the members of one community mostly belonging to the backward classes assembled in  the  compound of Gandhi library at Arwal for  holding  a peaceful meeting. At that time, the Superintendent of Police reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and  without  any warning or provocation opened fire,  as  a result of which several people were injured and at least  21 persons  including  children died. The police, it  was  also alleged,  started a false case implicating several  innocent people to cover up the aforesaid atrocities.     The petitioner in the writ petition prayed: (i) Full and proper  compensation should be awarded to the  victims-rela- tions of the dead and to those injured by the police firing; (ii) A direction be given for withdrawal of the police case; (iii)  Direction for settlement of the land in dispute  with the nine poor families; and (iv) transfer of the writ  peti- tion  pending  in  the Patna High Court to  this  Court  for hearing.     During  the  pendency of the Writ  Petition,  the  State Government held a judicial inquiry into the aforesaid  inci- dent  by  a  Member of the Board of  Revenue,  and,  awarded compensation to the heirs and relations of a few of the dead people to the tune of Rs. 10,000 each. Disposing of the writ petition, this Court, HELD: I. It would be appropriate that the matter is examined by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

632 the  High  Court. It would be convenient to the  parties  to produce material before the High Court on account of proxim- ity; the High Court will be in a position to call for  docu- ments  and if necessary, affidavits of parties concerned  as and  when necessary while dealing with the  matter.  Without notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties in the writ petition before the High Court an  order of  transfer may not be appropriate. It would not be  proper therefore to have the writ petition in the High Court trans- ferred to this Court. However, the petitioner is at  liberty to get itself impleaded before the High Court in the pending writ  petition  or  by filing  an  independent  application. [634F-H]     2.  It  is a normal feature that when  such  unfortunate consequences  emerge in police firing, the State comes  for- ward  to give compensation. No justification has been  indi- cated as to why the said compensation has not been given  in every  case  of death or injury. Ordinarily in the  case  of death  compensation  of Rs.20,000 is paid and  there  is  no reason  as  to  why the quantum of  compensation  should  be limited  to  Rs.10,000. However, in the case  of  death  the liability  of the wrong doer is not absolved when  compensa- tion of Rs.20,000 is paid. [635B-D]     3.(a) Without prejudice to any just claim for  compensa- tion  that may be advanced by the relations of  the  victims who  have  died or by the injured  persons  themselves,  for every case of death compensation of Rs.20,000 and for  every injured person compensation of Rs.5,000 shall be paid. Where some  compensation  has already been paid, the same  may  be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid.  [635D- F]     (b) In case the petitioner presses for disclosure of the report  submitted by the Member, Board of Revenue, the  High Court may examine the question as to whether the report will be  made public and in the event of privilege being  claimed the question of privilege will also be examined by the  High Court. [635F-G]     (c)  The investigation of the pending police case  shall be  completed within three months. In case charge  sheet  is submitted,  it would be open to the petitioner or any  other aggrieved  party  to challenge the  maintainability  of  the charges in accordance with law. [636B]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 369 of 1986. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 633     Govind  Mukhoty, Ms. Nandita Haksar and L.R.  Singh  for the Petitioners. D. Goburdhan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH  MISRA,  J.   Peoples’  Union  for  Democratic Rights, an organisation said to be committed to the  uphold- ing. of fundamental rights of citizens has filed this appli- cation  under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is  alleged that  on  19th  April, 1986, 600 to 700  poor  peasants  and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of  Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the District  of Gaya in the State of Bihar. Without any previous warning  by the police or any provocation on the part of the people  who had  so collected, the Superintendent of Police,  Respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

No. 3 herein, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the  gathering  and opened fire as a  result  which  several people were injured and at least 21 persons including  chil- dren  died. The petitioner alleged that separate  unofficial inquiries  have been held into the atrocity and the  reports indicated  that the number of deaths was much more  than  21 and  there was no justification for the firing.  It  appears that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26  deci- mals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and to such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side  and members  of  nine poor families on the other  were  parties. Even  though several people died and many more were  injured by  the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to  by  the police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police start- ed  a  false case being Arwal P.S. Case No. 59 of  1986  and therein  implicated several innocent people  including  even some of the people who had been killed in the firing.  Three specific prayers were made in the writ petition, namely:                    (1) To issue an appropriate writ or  make               an order or direction in the matter of payment               of  full and proper compensation to  the  vic-               tims--relations of the dead and to the  people               who were injured by police firing;                    (2)  For  a  direction  to  withdraw  the               police case referred to above; and                    (3)  For a direction to Respondent No.  1               to  settle the land in dispute with  the  nine               poor families.               634     During  the hearing of the matter, an additional  relief was pressed, namely, this Court should give a direction  for instituting a judicial inquiry into the alleged atrocity.     It  may be pointed out that during the pendency of  this writ  application  the State Government in response  to  the growing  demand for a judicial inquiry into the  matter  di- rected an inquiry therein by Shri Vinod Kumar, Member, Board of  Revenue, Bihar. The said inquiry has been completed  and the report has already been furnished to the Government.  On the orders of the Court, the report has been produced before this  Court  with a claim of  privilege  against  disclosure thereof.     The incident drew a lot of publicity and attention  both within  the State as also outside. Coming to know about  it, Shri  B.D.  Sharma,  Assistant  Commissioner  for  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes visited the locality and made  a report. At the instance of the petitioner, that document was summoned and has been produced. In respect thereof the Union Government has also claimed privilege.     In  the affidavits in opposition filed on behalf of  the respondents the factual assertions raised in the writ  peti- tion  have  been disputed. It has also been brought  to  our notice that a writ petition has been filed before the  Patna High Court prior to filing of this application under Article 32 before this Court and the writ petition in the High Court is still pending. Once this fact was brought to our  notice, Mr.  Mukhoty  for the petitioners submitted that  we  should direct  transfer  of the writ petition pending in  the  High Court  to this Court so that both the matters can  be  heard together.  We are of the view that it would  be  appropriate that  the matter is examined by the High Court. It would  be convenient  to  the parties to produce material  before  the High  Court on account of proximity; the High Court will  be in  a  position  to call for documents  and,  if  necessary, affidavits of parties concerned as and when necessary  while dealing  with  the matter; and without  notice  and  without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

affording  a  reasonable opportunity to the parties  in  the writ petition before the High Court an order of transfer may not  be  appropriate. In these circumstances,  we  have  not thought  it  proper to have the writ petition  in  the  High Court transferred to this Court. On the other hand, we  have considered  it expedient and proper in the interest of  jus- tice to dispose of some aspects of the matter now and  leave it  open to the petitioner to canvass the other  aspects  by getting itself impleaded before the High Court in the  pend- ing writ petition or by the filing of an independent  appli- cation. 635     There has been no dispute that as a result of the police firing  21 people died and several others were injured.  The heirs  and  relations of a few of the dead people  had  been compensated by the State to the tune of Rupees ten  thousand as found from the record. No justification has been indicat- ed  as  to why the said compensation has not been  given  in every  case  of death or injury. It is a normal  feature  of which  judicial notice can be taken that when such  unfortu- nate  consequences emerge even in police firing,  the  State comes  forward to give compensation. Mr. Jaya  Narayan,  for the  State  candidly  stated before us that it  is  not  the intention  of the State to deprive the relatives of some  of the  victims  who  succumbed to the  injuries  sustained  by police  firing from benefits of compensation. Ordinarily  in the case of death compensation of Rupees twenty thousand  is paid and we see no reason as to why the quantum of compensa- tion should be limited to rupees ten thousand. We may not be taken-to suggest that in the case of death the liability  of the  wrong  doer  is absolved when  compensation  of  Rupees twenty thousand is paid. But as a working principle and  for convenience and with a view to rehabilitating the dependants of  the deceased such compensation is being paid. We  direct that:                     (1) Without prejudice to any just  claim               for  compensation that may be advanced by  the               relations  of the victims who have died or  by               the injured persons themselves, for every case               of  death compensation of Rupees twenty  thou-               sand and for every injured person compensation               of  Rupees five thousand shall be paid.  Where               some  compensation has already been paid,  the               same  may  be  adjusted when  the  amount  now               directed is being paid. These payments be made               within two months hence.                     (2) In case the petitioner gets implead-               ed  in  the pending writ petition  before  the               High  Court or filed a separate writ  petition               and  presses for disclosure of the  Report  of               Mr.  Kumar,  the High Court  may  examine  the               question as to whether the report will be made               public  and  in the event of  privilege  being               claimed,  the question of privilege will  also               be examined by the High Court.                    (3) We have read the report furnished  by               the Assistant Commissioner of Scheduled Castes               and  Scheduled Tribes and since the report  is               not relevant to the point in issue, it is  not               necessary  to ask the High Court to  call  for               the  Report. We direct that the report  to  be               returned               636               to the appropriate Ministry from where it  has               been brought.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

                   (4)  The  investigation of  the  pending               police  case shall be completed  within  three               months  from now. In case chargesheet is  sub-               mitted, it would be open to the petitioner  or               any  other  aggrieved party to  challenge  the               maintainability  of the charges in  accordance               with law.     The  writ  petition is disposed of  with  the  aforesaid directions. The parties shall bear their own costs. M.L.A.                                       Petition   dis- posed of. 637