The Meghalaya High Court while noting that since all the matters pertaining to the deaths in custody in the State from 2012 till date have been covered, closed the Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to custodial violence and other matters relating to prison conditions in the state.
The Court said that it will be open to individuals or even to the Court, on its own, to institute further proceedings on similar lines to ensure that compensation is paid and the payment acts as a deterrent on the State.
The suo motu public interest litigation was initiated pursuant to a direction issued by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported at (2017) 10 SCC 658 (Re-Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons).
In course of the present proceedings the Bench noted that there have been 53 custodial deaths in the State since 2012. Detailed reports have been filed by the State indicating the likely causes of deaths in each case, appending copies of the post-mortem and inquest reports, sometimes relying on reports furnished by the forensic science laboratory or even the histopathological reports and, finally, the findings of the magisterial inquiry, albeit such inquiries being conducted by an Executive Magistrate in each case. Notices pertaining to this matter have been issued on several occasions and the next of kin of those who died in custody have been informed, except in cases where the relevant inmate may have been from Bangladesh. It is also the State’s submission that no person other than the 53 mentioned herein died in custody in the State since 2012. Out of the 53 instances of custodial deaths in the State of Meghalaya since the year 2012, a total of 25 cases are found to be due to natural causes and the remaining 28 are found to be cases of unnatural deaths.
“The basis for the assessment in the present case must be laid bare. While the State has every right to arrest a person during an investigation, subject to following the procedure established by law, or depriving a convict of his liberty by reason of the sentence that he has suffered, when a citizen or any other person is in the custody of the State, the State is responsible for his well-being. If such person dies while in the State’s custody, unless the State is able to affirmatively establish that the cause of death was natural, it will be inferred that the person died an unnatural death”, the Bench observed.
In each of the cases that the State has contested, the age of the relevant under-trial or convict or the physical condition of the person did not indicate that the death was due to natural causes. At the same time, no external injury may have been discovered or anything apparent to suggest that the person had been tortured or died as a consequence of any action by the police or jail authorities. However, as indicated, if the State cannot establish the cause of death while in custody, it would be inferred that it was a case of unnatural death, particularly when the deceased is found to have been healthy and too young to suffer such fate , said the Court.
According to the State, it was following the report of the 273rd Law Commission which required the States to legislate against death on account of torture that the entire matter came to the limelight. The State submits that since it is essentially a human rights issue and the national body has applied its mind to endorse the notification and the quantum in each case as fixed by the State of Haryana, the Court should let the matter rest as the State has followed the same classification and quantification.
It is the further contention of the State that, ordinarily, when the next of kin of a person who has died in custody accuses the State of any foul play, a civil action for damages would have to be brought; though, in certain extraordinary situations, even the writ court has entertained such a plea and has awarded compensation. According to the State, since the relatives of the persons who had died in custody do not have to undertake the trouble of making a claim and proving the same in Court, the quantum of compensation as declared by the State should be found to be adequate enough. The State also submits that considering that public money is involved, the Court should not allow for greater compensation as the State’s resources in such regard are limited.
The State said that to the extent that the amount of compensation has been paid to the next of kin of the relevant victims and the families have not complained, the Court should not enhance the quantum. It is also the State’s refrain that there has been no express plea by the relatives of the victims or even by Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter for enhancement of the compensation over and above what has been indicated by the State in its notification.
As to the suitability and sufficiency of the compensation, the initial discussion will hold good for the State’s objection, irrespective of whether any person has indicated any grievance against the amounts specified in the State’s notification. Compensation has both to be adequate for the families of the victims and to act as a deterrent so that the State and its officials remain in check. The quantum indicated by the State in its notification reveals the amount that the State is comfortable paying. If the State is comfortable paying an amount it almost amounts to endorsing its wrongdoing and perpetuating the same rather than paving the way for there being no unnatural death while in custody .
For the above cases, the State should ensure all payments are made to the next of kin upon due identification and verification within the next six months. That period is set as an outside limit. If the next of kin are available and make any demand immediately, the State should ensure that the amounts due are paid within the next three months. As to the amounts that are not collected, whether on account of the next of kin not being interested or not being aware, the State will, after waiting for a reasonable period when no claimant is identified, invest the money in the Cancer Department of Civil Hospital at Shillong as indicated hereafter. At all times, the Secretary in the Department of Health will remain liable to furnish appropriate accounts in respect of the compensation awarded or the compensation made over to the Cancer Department of the Shillong Civil Hospital , the Bench directed.
The Bench clarified that the compensation due in terms of this order in respect of the past cases and future cases will be in addition to any insurance or other entitlement and not in derogation thereof.
A death in custody is a slur on a civilised State and completely unacceptable. Ideally, there should be no death, except due to natural causes, while in custody. Of course, the natural causes are beyond the control of the State and convicts serving long sentences may also have age-related problems which may lead to their death. But it is particularly distressing to note the number of deaths of under-trial prisoners as the investigating agency uses third-degree methods to get information from the arrested person rather than go out in the field and investigate the matter. Oftentimes, the excesses indulged in by the State through its police personnel result in admissions, which may be inaccurate, but which are made to stave off or delay the further torture. If police brutalities and inhuman treatment of persons in custody have to be arrested, the compensation for custodial death has to be pegged at a level where the State will bleed to make the payment; not what the State is happy to pay off.
At any rate, there is no room to apply the strict liability theory when it comes to a death of a person in the custody of the State. The State’s liability in such regard is absolute and unless it demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Court that the death was due to natural causes, the Court may reasonably infer otherwise and hold the State liable. The State ought also to be liable for the actions of its officers and employees. It is possible that in several cases exuberant officials would go beyond the call of duty or the SOP in place. In such cases, the State will remain liable for the acts and conduct of its officials, but the State will also be free to proceed against such officials and even extract the compensation that it has to pay from such officials in accordance with law. Though the classification indicated in the Haryana notification and as has been mindlessly adopted by the State appears to be abhorrent and obnoxious, there should be some other form of classification based on a precedent therefor in our jurisprudence. In respect of motor accident claims, there is a classification of the quantum of compensation payable based on the age of the victim. Accordingly, it is deemed fit and proper to classify the victims who have died in custody into three categories, namely, below 30; between 30 and 45; and, above 45.
Since the judgment of the Court in Smti. Meena S. Marak has already established the quantum, the sum of Rs.15 lakh may be taken as the compensation payable for death in custody to the next of kin of a person age below 30. For victims in the age-group of 30 to 45, the quantum of compensation should be Rs.12 lakh and for those above 45 years, it should be Rs.10 lakh. There is an element of subjectivity in arriving at such ballpark figures; however, when it comes to assessment of damages or quantification of compensation, there is an element of guesstimation that is always indulged in.
Accordingly, the compensation agreed to be paid by the State in the notification dated December 15, 2022 is found to be inadequate by the High Court and the relevant notification is set aside by the Court. For the period till date in case of any unnatural death while in custody, the next and kin of the victim will be entitled to a sum of Rs.15 lakh if the victim was below 30 years of age as on the date of death; a sum of Rs.12 lakh if the victim was below the age of 45 years but above the age of 30 years as on the date of death and, a sum of Rs.10 lakh if the victim was above 45 years of age as on the date of death.
It is recorded by the High Court that the quantum of compensation found suitable in the present case is based on the compensation usually declared upon a major accident or natural calamity taking place. A comparable amount was also directed to be paid to families of covid victims by the Supreme Court.
All the next of kin of the aforesaid persons who suffered unnatural deaths would be entitled to compensation at the rates indicated hereinabove. It is more than likely that in several cases, because of the heinous offences committed or alleged to have been committed by the relevant persons, their next of kin may not be interested in contesting the proceedings or even collecting the compensation upon the death of the relevant person. In such cases, the State will be obliged to put in the money into the Cancer Department of the Civil Hospital in Shillong for the purpose of augmentation of equipment at such fledgling facility. The Secretary in the Department of Health will be responsible to ensure that the money is disbursed by the State and, upon the next of kin of the deceased victim not being available or willing to accept the payment, the money is immediately made over to the Cancer Department of the Civil Hospital in Shillong.The amounts of Rs.15 lakh, Rs.12 lakh and Rs.10 lakh in the three categories as will hold good till the end of the year 2024, whereupon they will stand increased by Rs.1.5 lakh at the highest level and by Rs.1 lakh each at the two other levels for the next period of three years. The quantum of compensation should be enhanced every three years so that it is sufficient damages for the next of kin and the deterrent factor is also maintained to the same degree , the Court directed.
The High Court clarified that the compensation will be payable only in cases of unnatural death, irrespective of the cause of death. In cases of natural death in custody, no compensation would be payable at all. As to cases where the State suggests that the injuries suffered which caused death were in course of the person in custody trying to escape, the determination of the cause would be by an appropriate court in accordance with law.