'State Cannot Shirk Duty to Protect Prisoners in Custody': Delhi High Court

While granting compensation to the kin of a man who died in judicial custody following a gang-related assault inside Tihar Jail, the Delhi High Court has held that it is the bounden duty of the State to ensure the safety of persons in its custody.

Observing that the State must ensure that such “gangs” are not permitted to proliferate in jails, a bench led by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in a 51-page judgment, said, "This Court believes that the State must ensure that every person who is in custody is kept safe and secure from themselves as well as other such inmates who are present therein. The fact that two 'rival gangs', as per the contention of the Respondents, chose to have an altercation and that the victim participated in the same, would not absolve the authorities of their bounden responsibility to carry out their duty of ensuring the safety and security of prisoners."

The single judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Shakila, the mother of the deceased Javed @ Bhura seeking a judicial inquiry into the custodial death of her son and compensation, asserting that she was dependent on him.

Javed had been convicted under Sections 394, 397, and 34 IPC and was serving a 7-year sentence at Tihar Jail. He was due to be released on 05.05.2013; however, he died in custody on 03.05.2013 following a gang-related scuffle between inmates.

The case at hand had been pursued by Javed's family, including his children and siblings, after his mother, Shakila, passed away. The Delhi High Court had allowed substitution on 27.08.2019, and the siblings of Javed continued the case.

Before the High Court, the petitioners had argued that the State failed in its duty to protect the prisoner. Compensation was also sought on the ground that Javed had been the sole earner of the family.

On the other hand, the State argued that the death took place in an inmate fight between two rival gangs; jail staff had no knowledge or involvement. The State further moved on the premise that Javed had a violent background and was involved in gang violence himself.

It was also contended that Shakila had already been paid INR 1,00,000 as compensation through NHRC orders and that her children and grandchildren were not “dependents” under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS).

Rejected the State's argument, the court held that even if a prisoner dies during a gang scuffle, and even if he was a participant, the State cannot shirk its responsibility.

"The State was, therefore, vicariously responsible for the unfortunate death of the son of the Petitioner in this case, who died in judicial custody under the circumstances narrated above. It is therefore liable to pay compensation, which this Court quantifies at Rs. 2 lakhs in the facts and circumstances of this case,” the court held.

Accordingly, the court ordered the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to release Rs 2 lakh to the legal heirs (siblings & grandchildren). It also asked DSLSA to conduct a fact-finding investigation into the extent of physical or monetary dependence on Javed.

Case Title: SHAKILA vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS