Neetu Bai (Smt.) vs State of M.P. and Others

Ajit Singh, J.—In the present habeas corpus petition the petitioner, alleging illegal detention of her husband by respondent No. 4 C.K. Patil Field Director Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve and respondent No. 6 Rajesh Tripathi Forest Ranger, has prayed for payment of compensation. Although prayer for some other reliefs have also been made in the petition, the learned counsel for petitioner during the course of arguments did not press for them. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and her husband Mansingh was a driver on muster-roll since 1997 in the Forest Department of the State Government. Mansingh had been posted in District Umaria and for the last one year he was driving the jeep of Forest Range Officer Lalit Pandey.

Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve is situated in a place called Tala which falls in District Umaria. On 18.5.2010 Mansingh was required to drive his jeep inside the Tiger Reserve along with the Range Officer Lalit Pandey to inspect the construction work of pond. This work was being carried out in the Tiger Reserve under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. At that time A.K. Singh, Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Umaria, also entered the Tiger Reserve but in a separate jeep. He too did so to inspect the same construction work. According to the petitioner, after inspection, Mansingh returned in his jeep from the Tiger Reserve on the evening of 18.5.2010 itself.

Sometime between 18/19.5.2010 a tigress died in the Tiger Reserve allegedly due to dashing of jeep against it. This incident was highlighted by the media at national level and fingers were pointed against rich and powerful people for deliberately killing the tigress. Respondent No. 3 Collector, Umaria, took the incident seriously and constituted a committee of two senior responsible officers for holding an inquiry and submitting a report Karan Singh Karma, Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) and Shivpal Singh, Additional Collector, Umaria, were the members of this committee. They, after holding an inquiry, submitted a detailed report dated 3.6.2010, Annexure R4, to the Collector with their findings enumerated therein.

According to the petitioner, Mansingh was called on 19.5.2010 by Forest Ranger Rajesh Tripathi and Field Director C.K. Patil of the Tiger Reserve and they pressurized him to state that the tigress was hit by the jeep of A.K. Singh, Chief Executive Officer, but he declined to do so. The petitioner has also alleged that Mansingh was thereafter illegally detained from 24.5.2010 by the Field Director C.K. Patil and his men for ulterior motives. It is in this background the petitioner filed the present petition on 9.6.2010 for the release of Mansingh and payment of compensation.

On 10.6.2010 the petition came up for hearing on which date the Deputy Advocate General was directed to seek instructions within two days. On 14.6.2010 the Government Advocate was directed to produce the corpus of Mansingh before the court and the matter was fixed for hearing on 17.6.2010. On 17.6.2010 Mansingh was produced before the court. On that date Mansingh filed an affidavit along with I.A. No. 6779/2010 stating therein as to how he was kept under illegal detention from 24.5.2010 up to 14.6.2010 by Field Director C.K. Patil who released him because of the habeas corpus petition.

The State Government in its return has stated that since Mansingh has been released, the petition has become infructuous. The State Government, however, has filed the aforesaid inquiry report dated 3.6.2010, Annexure R4, of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) and Additional Collector along with the return. The State Government has also mentioned in the return that the Special Task Force has been constituted by the Criminal Investigation Department to investigate the incident of killing of tigress in the Tiger Reserve. Respondent No. 4 Field Director C.K. Patil in his separate return has denied the allegation of detention of Mansingh by him.

On examining the inquiry report dated 3.6.2010 Annexure R4 filed by the State Government, we find that there is a specific finding about Mansingh having been kept forcibly under illegal detention since 24.5.2010 in a room at Tala by Field Director C.K. Patil for pressurizing him to state that the tigress was hit by the jeep of A.K. Singh, Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Umaria, and his detention was violative of his human rights. The Deputy Advocate General could not deny the correctness of this finding in the inquiry report. Even the counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 Field Director C.K. Patil could not show us any good ground to disbelieve the finding of the inquiry report regarding the illegal detention of Mansingh in a room at Tala. This being the situation, we have no hesitation in holding that Mansingh was under illegal detention from 24.5.2010 upto 14.6.2010 for no fault of his by the State Government or its officers while acting in the course of employment.

The liability of the State to pay compensation for deprivation of the fundamental right of life and personal liberty is a new liability in public law created by the Constitution and not vicarious liability or a liability in tort. For this reason, this new liability is not hedged in by the limitations, including the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which ordinarily apply to State''s liability in tort. This view is strongly supported by the decision of the Privy Council in Maharaj v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (1978) 2 All ER 670. Section 1 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago recognizes amongst other "the right of the individual of life, liberty, security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law". Any person alleging contravention of this right and other human rights and freedoms recognized under sections 1 and 2 can apply u/s 6 for redress to the High Court which is empowered to issue appropriate orders, writs and directions for enforcement or securing the protection of provisions of the aforesaid sections. The appellant in the case was a barrister and was committed to seven days imprisonment by a judge of the High Court which committal was set aside by the Privy Council in appeal on the ground that particulars of the specific nature of the contempt were not told to the appellant and the judge had thereby failed to observe a fundamental rule of natural justice. The appellant had in the meantime applied for redress u/s 6 on the ground that he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law. This application was dismissed by the High Court, but appellant again came up in appeal, to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that section 6 of the Constitution impliedly allowed the High Court to award compensation as that may be the only practicable form of redress in some cases. The Privy Council also held that as the appellant''s committal was in violation of the rules of natural justice, he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law in contravention of section 1 of the Constitution and was entitled to claim compensation from the State u/s 6 thereof. In meeting the argument that a judge cannot be made personally liable for anything done or purporting to be done in the exercise or purported exercise of his judicial functions, LORD DIPLOCK speaking for the majority observed: "The claim for redress u/s 6(1) for what has been done by a judge is a claim against the State for what has been done in the exercise of judicial power of the State. This is not vicarious liability: it is liability of the State itself. It is not a liability in tort at all: it is a liability in public law of the State, not of the judge, which has been created by sections 6(1) and (2) of the Constitution." As to the measure of compensation LORD DIPLOCK said: "The claim is not a claim in private law for damages for the tort of false imprisonment under which the damages recoverable are at large and would include damages for loss of reputation. It is a claim in public law for compensation for deprivation of liberty alone. Such compensation would include any loss of earnings consequent on the imprisonment and recompense for the inconvenience and distress suffered by the appellant during his incarceration."

The above view was accepted by the Supreme Court in Smt. Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, 0 and thereafter in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, . In both these cases although the basis for the concept of public law wrong, related to violation of Article 21, the observations in them are general that violation of fundamental rights will be public law wrong redressable under Articles 226 and 32. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court, however, in Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Ananta Bhattacharjee and Others, has held that "the public law remedy for the purpose of grant of compensation can be resorted to only when the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is violated and not otherwise". The court further said that "it is not every violation of the provisions of the constitution or a statute which would enable the court to direct grant of compensation." Earlier also in Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, the Supreme Court in a case under Article 32 of the Constitution directed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner who was an M.L.A. and was illegally arrested and detained to prevent him from attending the assembly session.

A Division Bench of this High Court comprising of A.K. Patnaik, C.J. and myself in Pooran Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, after referring the above cases has held that it is now well settled that the defence of sovereign immunity is not available when the State or its officers, acting in the course of employment, infringe a person''s fundamental right of life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the State can be directed in a writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to repair the damage done to the victim by paying appropriate compensation.

We have already held that Mansingh was kept under illegal detention from 24.5.2010 upto 14.6.2010 in a room at Tala. We are also informed at the Bar that from the date of the death of tigress, no work has been taken from Mansingh by the Forest Department as a result of which he has become unemployed. Having regard to these facts, we direct the State Government to pay him compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- within two months from today. We have awarded this amount as compensation feeling that the amount is just and proper. While doing so, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu (Supra), we have not taken into account the punitive element as the objective is to apply balm to the wounds of petitioner and not to punish the transgressor.

Before parting, we wish to mention that surprisingly the incident of killing of the-tigress is still under investigation by the Special Task Force of the Criminal Investigation Department. The Special Task Force has been constituted to unravel the mystery of killing of the tigress truthfully. But sadly although more than 11/2 year has elapsed, no report has been submitted. This slow pace of investigation by the Special Task Force has started creating doubt on its credibility. We, therefore, recommend the Special Task Force to complete the investigation fairly and submit its report as early as possible but not later than three months from today. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the petitioner by the State Government.