Bhagalpur blinding case [Khatri-vs- state of Bihar]

 

 

BHAGALPUR BLINDING CASE

KHATRI –VS- STATE OF BIHAR

[(1981)1SCC 623]

The incident revolves around a very brutal incident whereby the police authorities exceeded their power and authority given to them. There were certain undertrial prisoners on whose eyes acid was poured blinding them. This act of pouring the acid was done by the police officials and blinding them forever. This infamous incident led to the petition brought before the apex court for getting compensation and monetary relief in favour of the petitioners because of violation of their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the police officials. The incident which took place in Bhagalpur Central Jail of Bihar came to light through an article report by a newspaper journalist which created uproar in the society.

It culminated into 4 judgements called Khatri v. State of Bihar and its accompanying cases Which is popularly known as Bhagalpur Blinding Cases. The apex court held that where there

is a violation of the fundamental right and in the present case of Article 21 (Right to Life), there is no denial that the State has to pay for monetary relief in circumstances where the victims were blinded by the brutal act of the police officials.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case revolve around the brutal incident whereby certain undertrial prisoners in the State of Bihar were blinded by the police authorities by pouring acid into their eyes. This incident came as a rude shock as their eyesight was taken away from them forever. The petitioners claimed that while they were arrested and were in the police custody, they were adversely blinded by the police officers exceeding their police authorities and acting not as officials of the State but violating the fundamental right of the individuals arrested of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They claimed that since these incidents happened, they are liable to be compensated from such a violation of their rights by the State through the petition brought. The incident is from the Bhagalpur Central Jail in Bihar where this barbaric incident took place by the officials who themselves are enforces of the law in the country.

The reports in various newspapers were published related to the incident of Bhagalpur blinding which came as a huge shock to everyone. This article was sent before the Supreme Court of India by the advocate and received by Justice P. N. Bhagwati, treating it as a petition (which in later cases is recognized as the epistolary jurisdiction). After that, the petition was moved by the advocate Kapila Hingorani on behalf of certain 10 undertrials for habeas corpus in the present case which were all taken together.

ISSUES

I. Whether the State of Bihar is under an obligation to grant monetary relief and compensation for the deprivation of life of the undertrial prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Plea of the Petitioner

The arguments advanced by the petitioner are such that the police officials who blinded the petitioners were not acting in their private capacity but were acting as police officers and officials of the authorities. Thus, when the petitioners were arrested and were further communicated to the police custody, the act which took place was by the officials of the State. So, the State is liable to compensate the petitioners for the violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 for which the petitioners have the right under Article 32 to bring action before the court.

Plea of the Respondent

The representation from the side of the respondent came at a very late stage and there were certain times when no one from the respondent was present in the hearing. The court expressed displeasure to that regard. One of the arguments advanced by the respondent is such that the State of Bihar is not liable to pay compensation since the State is not constitutionally or legally responsible for the acts done by the police officers who are outside the scope of power or the authority given to them. Also, the argument was that even when here is violation of the petitioner, under Article 21 of the Constitution, there is nothing which talks about liability to pay compensation or monetary terms. Furthermore, the legal services under Article 21 could not be given since they were accused in relation to an offence which was again discredited by the court at the later stage.

 

The legal aspect involved is that of Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 talks about right to life and personal liberty. The provision says that no one shall be deprived

of their right to life and liberty except by the procedure laid down by the law. Thus, this provision means that the very fundamental basic right is that of right to life and this cannot in any situation be curtailed unless there is a specific provision in law in regard to such a curtailment. Right to life in itself includes not only bare right to live but also essential necessities of life like shelter, food, etc along with right to live with dignity in a civilized society. This is ensured by Article 21 of the Constitution as it has been interpreted by apex court in different judgements. Thus, under Article 32, the power is given to bring a petition for constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court of India through the usage of 5 writ petitions, namely, habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The petitioners can approach the appropriate court for the violation of their fundamental rights given under Part III of the Constitution by the State and can claim appropriate remedy by the Supreme Court of India. Along with this, certain ancillary provisions related to Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 including Section 162 for production of documents and 172 for production of police diaries and statements. But mainly, constitutional provisions are dealtwith.

JUDGEMENT

The court was presented with the blinded prisoners before them where they saw the uncanny condition of the under trial prisoners whereby their eyes were burned. There were scars on their eyes and it was completely destroyed and corroded along with the tissues of the eyes completely burned. These were the atrocities expressed on the under trial prisoners. It was further informed certain under trial prisoners were even granted bail and is now a victim to such cruel and barbaric condition forever with no ramification from the State. Further the State of Bihar has avoided appearing in certain portion of hearing as well.

Further, the court went further to explain that the concept of the free legal services is necessary element even for the person who is an accused in relation to a certain offence. This element is granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the court said that the element that the arrested person is to be presented before the Magistrate is a very important ingredient as well because this ensures that the police authorities are not exceeding their power and authority given to them and a balance and check is maintained between the officials of the State.

Moving ahead the court said that they had ordered investigation in the particular issue so as not find out the guilt of a particular police officer since that particular aspect will be taken care of under the criminal proceedings. It, thereby, does not bar the present apex court to conduct an inquiry to look at whether the petitioners were blinded by the officials and to decide whether their fundamental right to life under Article 21 is violated or not. For that purpose, it is necessary to further arrive at the compensation that the State is liable to pay.

Thus, the investigation proceedings are completely different in the criminal proceedings and that of the writ petition (civil proceedings) and there can be no bar on it.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that there is in fact a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners whereby their eyesight was taken away from them intentionally and it violated their right under Article 21. For this violation under Article 21, the State is completely liable to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners. What the petitioner presented was that the police officials were not acting in their private capacity but were involved as an official of the State when the arrest was made and then they were in police custody. Thus, the State becomes liable to pay compensation for such a violation. The court then, answered to the two arguments by the State in negative whereby the court

said that it would make the application of Article 21 a mockery and its existence as well in the Constitution if a police officer acting in his official capacity threatens a person of their life without any authority of law and that person cannot even approach this court for injuncting such an officer for violation of the fundamental right and that the State is not even liable. It will be wrong to say that. Moreover, that is a situation of threatening violation of right to life but what if a situation, which exist in present case, that there is already a breach of the fundamental right like the severance of limb of the petitioner, it will be wrong to say that they cannot get remedy from the State under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To get remedy through Article 32, the petitioner has to establish that there is violation of fundamental right under Article 21 and that they were blinded while being in police custody or arrested by the police officials.

The court decided to pay to each of the under trial prisoners who have been blinded by the police officials who were not acting in their private capacity in the Bhagalpur Central Jail but in their official capacity, for them the State is liable to pay a certain sum of money i.e. Rs.500/- each for their treatment in a certain hospital in Delhi and the State to pay certain amount per month i.e. Rs. 300/- each per month, for the purpose of further maintenance for long as they are being treated.