LexA.K. SINGH AND ORS. versus UTTARAKHAND JAN MORCHA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A A.K. SINGH AND ORS. v. UTTARAKHAND JAN MORCHA AND ORS. MAY 13, 1999 B [K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Compensation-Quantum of-High Court issued directions to the State Government to pay compensation to the victims of Uttarakhand violence and to make fund allotments amounting C to crores of rupees for development of the affected regions-Directions issued at a pre-mature stage without trial, without considering the evidence- Jssued without having regard to the financial capacity. of the State Government, its resources and legislative mandates involving state funding- Such directions resulted in massive financial burden on the state-Held, D such directions for payment of compensation is unsustainable. 'E F Power of High Court-To issue directions relating to sanction for prosecuting the government officials-Framing of charges-Jurisdiction of court-On facts, the High Court went into the question of sanction for prosecution of the Government officials involved in the offences and the offences to be included in the charges framed at the pre-mature stage-Court issued directions regarding the jurisdiction of the court and the venue of the trial-Held, issuance of such direction not justified-Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 197 and 228. This was a stir to press the demand for a separate State ofUttarakhand comprising certain hilly regions of the state of Uttar Pradesh and some other areas. The stir collected momentum when state government issued notification pertaining to reservation in educational institutions based on region-wise domicile. A public rally was organized for protesting against the notification and to press the demand for separate state. The administration G took stern measures to resist the protesters' march towards the National Capital as the proposed rallysts where carrying lethal weapons. Confrontation ensued which had resulted in lot of blood-shed including loss of many lives, infliction of injuries on persons belonging to both sides, outraging the modesty of women ranging to ravishments. H Then, an association styled as Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samity filed a 624 A.K. SINGH v. UTT ARAKHAND JAN MORCHA 625 writ petition for directions to be issued to the authorities to meet the A consequences of the said confrontation. Division Bench issued interim directions to Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire into allegations of "human rights violations." After investigation CBI framed charge- sheet against certain officers under Sections 109, 120-B read with Section 341and342 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction of the State Government was B obtained for launching prosecution in respect of those offences. Some of the accused who were arrayed in the said charge-sheet filed writ petitions challenging the validity of the sanction order issued by the State Government for prosecuting them. The Division Bench disposed of the petition filed by the samiti C issuing several directions. The court without trial and without considering the evidence directed the State Government to pay huge compensation to the victims of the Uttarakhand violence and to make fund allotments amounting to several crores of rupees for development of the affected regions. It further held that no sanction of the government is required under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code for prosecuting the officials D for any offences committed by them while resisting the rallyists. It also issued directions regarding the venue of trial of different cases. Aggrieved by the High Court's order the appellants preferred the present appeal. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. High Court is not justified in fixing up huge sum as compensation for the victims of Uttarakhand violence at a premature stage without trial and without considering the evidence. It did not take into account the financial capacity of the State Government, its resources E for making up the said amount, the priorities to be honoured by the State Government and the legislative mandates involving State funding F while ordering the Government to incur such huge expenditure. Thus, there is no justification for using judicial power for imposing such unbearable burden on the State which in turn would be compelled to extract money out of common man's coffers to meet such massive financial burden. [629-F; 630-H; 631-D-E) G 1.2. The High ·Court should not have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.