Read Time: 09 minutes
The Allahabad High Court recently, directed the Uttar Pradesh government to strictly implement its policy of paying Rs 25,000 in compensation to a person who has been illegally detained, and to initiate disciplinary action against erring officials.
The Court was hearing a plea filed one Shiv Kumar Verma, who alleged that he and another person were illegally detained by the police on the apprehension of breach of public peace when a dispute relating to ancestral property arose between the petitioners and their family members.
It must be noted that the petitioner Shiv Verma was arrested by the Varanasi police on October 8, 2020. Further on October 12, he filed relevant papers seeking his release, but for verification of papers, the case was adjourned till October 21. The petitioner alleged that he was illegally detained from October 12 to October 21 despite submitting personal bond and other papers as directed. He demanded compensation for the period.
The Division Bench of Justice S.P. Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed disposed of the petition with directions and observed that,
“A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse… Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.”
The Court further observed,
“It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated which erodes the credibility in the system.”
The Bench noted that, an ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil.
“Where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. The test of permissive form of grant is over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.” – observed court.
The Bench referred to Supreme Court decision in the case Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, where it was observed that,
“Under our Constitution Sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law.”
The Bench directed the following to the State government –
Case title – Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State Of U.P. and 3 Others, 2021
Please Login or Register
