Saheli, A Women’s Resources Centre vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters (1989)

Background:

The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India by Saheli, a Women’s Resources Centre, on behalf of two women, Kamlesh Kumari and Maya Devi, who were tenants in a property located in Anand Parbat, New Delhi. The property was under dispute, with the alleged landlord, Puran Chand, and his sons Shambu Dayal and Prakash Chand attempting to forcefully evict the tenants with the alleged assistance and connivance of local police officers, including the Station House Officer (SHO) Lal Singh.

The central issue arose when Kamlesh Kumari’s nine-year-old son, Naresh, died allegedly due to injuries inflicted by the police. Saheli filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking compensation for the death of Naresh and alleging police brutality and misuse of authority.

Facts of the Case:

1. Dispute over Tenancy:
   Kamlesh Kumari and Maya Devi were living in rooms on the ground floor of the property. Kamlesh Kumari’s husband, a truck driver, was often away from home, leaving her alone with their three children. In 1984, the original landlord left the property, and a new landlord, Manohar Lal, later sold it to Puran Chand and his sons. The new landlords began a campaign to evict the tenants, including cutting off the water and electricity supply. Kamlesh Kumari obtained a court stay order against her eviction.
2. Alleged Police Misconduct:
   On several occasions, the local police, led by SHO Lal Singh, pressured Kamlesh Kumari to vacate her room. On November 13, 1987, police officers took Kamlesh Kumari’s children to the police station and threatened her with their continued detention unless she vacated the premises. Later, her children were released with the intervention of her lawyer.
3. Assault Incident:
   On November 14, 1987, Kamlesh Kumari was attacked in her home by Shambu Dayal and his accomplices, including police officers in civilian clothes. During the attack, her nine-year-old son Naresh clung to her to protect her, but he was thrown on the floor by SHO Lal Singh and beaten. Kamlesh Kumari was arrested and detained until November 16, 1987. When she was released, she found Naresh in a critical condition. Despite being taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Naresh’s condition deteriorated, and he died on November 26, 1987. A medico-legal case was eventually registered, but there were delays and inconsistencies in the police handling of the case.
4. Investigation Findings:
   A Crime Branch investigation report dated December 5, 1987, indicated a conspiracy involving local police officers in aiding the landlords in their illegal eviction efforts. The report highlighted police involvement in the beatings and other illegal acts and opposed bail for the accused landlord, citing police collusion.

Legal Issues:

1. Vicarious Liability of the State:
   The primary legal question was whether the State could be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by its police officers in the course of their employment.
2. Right to Compensation:
   Whether Kamlesh Kumari, as the mother of Naresh, was entitled to compensation from the State for the death of her son caused by police brutality.

Judgment:

1. Vicarious Liability:
   The Supreme Court held that the State is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees if such acts are committed in the course of their employment. In this case, the beating and subsequent death of Naresh were clearly linked to actions taken by the police officers in violation of their authority. The Court stated that the responsibility of the State extends to unlawful acts committed by its agents or officers while exercising their powers.
2. Compensation Awarded:
   The Court ordered the Delhi Administration (Respondent No. 2) to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000 to Kamlesh Kumari for the wrongful death of her son due to the excessive and unlawful actions of the police. The Court emphasized that compensation is not only for the physical injuries caused but also for the mental pain, distress, indignity, and loss suffered by Kamlesh Kumari and her family.
3. Recovery from Responsible Officers:
   The Court allowed the Delhi Administration to recover the amount paid as compensation from the responsible officers, depending on the outcome of further proceedings. However, the Court clarified that any observations made in the judgment should not influence ongoing or future criminal proceedings against the police officials involved.

Significance of the Judgment:

• Recognition of State Liability:
  This case is significant for affirming the principle that the State can be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, particularly in cases of police brutality or misuse of authority. It reinforced the accountability of law enforcement agencies and the right to compensation for victims of state excesses.
• Precedent for Compensation in Human Rights Violations:
  The judgment set a precedent for awarding compensation to victims of human rights violations and wrongful acts committed by state actors, thereby promoting the rule of law and safeguarding citizens’ rights under the Constitution.

Related Cases Referenced:

• Joginder Kaur v. The Punjab State and Ors. (1969): Discussed the liability of the State for torts committed by its employees.
• The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and Anr. (1962): Held that the State is liable for tortious acts of its employees.
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters (1989): Where the Supreme Court directed compensation for the death of a laborer beaten by the police.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a crucial legal precedent for holding the State accountable for the actions of its law enforcement officers, especially in instances of abuse of power and human rights violations. The award of compensation underscores the Court’s role in protecting citizens’ rights and upholding justice in the face of state misconduct.