LexIN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011 versus HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 971 IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011 A v. HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122 of 2011) FEBRUARY 23, 2012 B [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.144 rlw s.134 and the Delhi Police Standing Order 309 - Public agitation - Police crackdown at midnight on members of sleeping c congregation - Action against erring police officials - Compensation to victims - Respondent no. 4-Trust had obtained permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Police for holding a yoga training camp between 1st June, 2011 to 20th June, 2011 at Ramlila Maidan, an enclosed public o ground in Delhi - On 4th June, 2011, Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev, who had been leading an Anti-corruption campaign, commenced hunger strike/fast at the said camp to protest against black money and corruption - Permission granted to hold the said camp subsequently revoked and on the night E of 4th/5th June, 2011 while Baba Ramdev and his followers were sleeping in the Maidan, they were forcibly woken up in purported exercise of the police powers conferred uls. 144 CrPC on the strength of a prohibitory order dated 4th June, 2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police - Police resorted to use of teargas and lathi charge in order to disperse the assembly as a result of which a number of men and women were injured, some seriously and also finally resulted into the death of one Smt. Rajbala - There was also damage to property - Suo motu proceedings by Supreme Court - Held: In the facts of the case, the State and the Police G could have av_oided this tragic incident by exercising greater restraint, patience and resilience- The orders were passed by F the authorities in undue haste and were executed with force and overzealousness, as if an emergent situation existed - 971 H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A The decision to forcibly evict the innocent public sleeping on the Ramlila Maidan in the midnight of 4th/5th June, 2011, whether taken by the police independently or in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs was amiss and suffered from element of arbitrariness and abuse of power to some extent 8 - The restriction imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expression was unsupported by cogent reasons and material facts - The action demonstrated the might of the State and was an assault on the very basic democratic values enshrined in the Indian Constitution - The police failed to C establish that a situation had arisen where there was imminent need to intervene - Disciplinary action directed to be taken against erring police officers/personnel who indulged in brick- batting, resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd or did not help in transportation of sick and injured people to the hospitals - Direction for registration D of criminal cases against police personnel as also members of the gathering at the Ramli/a Maidan (followers of Baba Ramdev or otherwise) who indulged in damage to property - Ad-hoc compensation of Rs.5 lacs to legal heirs of Smt. Rajbala; Rs.50,0001- each to persons who suffered grievous E injuries and were admitted to hospital and Rs. 25, 0001- each to persons who suffered simple injuries and were taken to hospital but discharged after a short while - However, consequences of financial liability to pass, though to a limited extent, upon respondent no.4-Trust as well - Respondent F no.4 was guilty of contributory negligence - The Trust and its representatives ought to have discharged their legal and moral duty and should have fully cooperated in the effective implementation of the order passed u/s. 144 CrPC - Due to the stature that Baba Ramdev enjoyed with his followers, it was G expected of him to request the gathering to disperse peacefully and leave the Ramlila Maidan - Accordingly, in cases of death and grievous hurt, 25% of the awarded compensation to be paid by the Trust - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(2) and 19(3). H IN RE: RAMLILAMAIDAN INCIDENTDT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME 973 SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA Human Rights - Right to sleep - Public agitation - Police A crackdown at midnight on members of sleeping congregation - Suo motu proceedings by Supreme Court - Held (per Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.): Sleep is a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life itse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.