PEOPLES' UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 19-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
PEOPLES' UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 1986 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 32-Police firing-Some 
persons killed and several others injured-Payment of compensation-
Necessity for. 
Public Interest LitiKation~Po/ice firin~Some persons dying 
and several others injured-!'ayment of compensation-Necessity of. 
The petitioner-an organisation, said to .be committed to the up-
... · 
holding 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 decimals of low lying land at Arwal between mem-
bers 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 tielonging to the backward classes assembled in the 
c9mpound of Gandhi library at Arwal for holding a peaceful meeting. 
At that time, the'Superintendent of Police reached the spot w.ith police 
force, surroUJ1ded the gathering and without any warning or provoca-
·j._ tion opened fire, ;is 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 shoold be awarded to the victims-relations of the dead and 
to th"!"' injured by the police firing; (ii) A direction be given for with-
·' drawal of the police case; (iii) Direction for settlement of.the land in 
~ 
_ dispute with the nine poor families; and (iv) transfer of the writ petition 
pending. in the Patna High Court lo this Court for hearing. 
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the State Government 
held a judicial inquiry into the aforesaid incident by a Member of the 
Board of Revenue, and, awarded compensation to the heirs and. rda-
tions of a few of the dead people to the tune of Rs. 10,000 each. 
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: I. ff would be appropriate that the matter Is examined by 
631 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F. 
G 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] l S.C.R. 
A the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to produce mate-
rial before the High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will 
he in a position to call for documents 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 
B may not he appropriate. It would not be proper therefore to have the 
writ petition in the High Court transferred 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 
c emerge in police firing, the State comes forward to give compensation. 
No justification has been indicated 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. How-
ever, in the case of death the liability of the wrong doer is not absolved 
D when compensation of Rs.20,000 is paid. [6358-D] 
3.(a) Without prejudice lo 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 
Rs.20,000 and for every injured person compensation of Rs.S,000 shall 
E 
be paid. Where some compensation has already been paid, the same 
may be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid. [6350-F] 
(b) In case the petitioner presses for disclosure of the report sub- · 
m\tted 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 
F 
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 
G 
maintainabilit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.