Supreme Court Directs Compensation for 1992-93 Mumbai Riots Victims: Shakeel Ahmed vs. Union of India (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., Vikram Nath, J.

Can the state be held accountable for failing to protect its citizens during communal riots? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the 1992-93 Mumbai riots. The court examined the implementation of the Srikrishna Commission report and the compensation due to the victims of the violence. This judgment emphasizes the state’s responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens and to provide redressal for harm caused by its failure to maintain law and order.

The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and Vikram Nath. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The city of Mumbai experienced severe communal violence from 6th December 1992 to 12th March 1993. This period saw intense mob violence, communal tensions, and riots, resulting in significant loss of life and property damage. The violence occurred in two phases: from 6th December 1992 to 10th December 1992, and again from 6th January 1993 to 20th January 1993. Following these riots, a series of bomb blasts occurred on 12th March 1993, further exacerbating the situation.

In response to these events, the Government of Maharashtra constituted the Srikrishna Commission on 25th January 1993, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The commission, headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, was tasked with investigating the circumstances and causes of the riots and bomb blasts, identifying responsible individuals or groups, assessing the adequacy of police measures, and recommending measures to prevent future incidents.

The Commission’s terms of reference were later expanded to include the serial bomb blasts of 12th March 1993 and to determine if there was a common link between the riots and the blasts. The Commission submitted its report in February 1998, which included findings and recommendations. However, the State Government initially disbanded the Commission in 1996, citing delays, but later revived it following intervention from the then Prime Minister.

The present petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking various reliefs including a declaration that an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is equivalent to an inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, that public servants indicted under the Act be summarily dismissed, that the State act on the findings of the Srikrishna Commission, that summary cases be reopened, and that compensation be paid to missing persons.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment references the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, under which the Srikrishna Commission was established. The court notes that while the recommendations of a commission under this Act are not binding on the government, a writ of mandamus can be issued for their implementation once the government accepts them.

The judgment also discusses the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Section 12, which specifies criteria for providing legal services. Section 12 states:

“12. Criteria for giving legal services — Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is— (a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (b) a victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in article 23 of the Constitution; (c) a woman or a child; (d) a person with disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996); (e) a person under circumstances of underserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic, violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster; or (f) an industrial workman; or (g) in custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986), or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987); or (h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.”

The Court interprets the term “ethnic violence” in Section 12(e) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to include communal violence, thereby making victims of such violence eligible for legal aid.

Additionally, the judgment references Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes a presumption of death for a person not heard of for seven years.

The Court also refers to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the right to life with human dignity, which includes living in an atmosphere free from communal tension.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner, represented by Shri Colin Gonsalves, argued that the State Government’s actions regarding the Srikrishna Commission’s recommendations were superficial.
• The petitioner contended that police officials found guilty of misconduct by the Commission were either exonerated or given minor penalties.
• The petitioner pointed out that most prosecutions ended in discharge or acquittal, and the Legal Services Authorities failed to assist victims in challenging these orders.
• The petitioner also argued that the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs provided to the legal heirs of those who died in the riots was insufficient and that there were significant delays in payment.
• The petitioner also highlighted that very few families of missing persons received compensation, despite the legal presumption of death after seven years of being missing.
• The petitioner requested that compensation be enhanced substantially and that the State Government be directed to ensure compensation for every eligible victim, along with interest for the delayed payments.

State Government’s Arguments:

• The State Government, represented by Shri Rahul Chitnis, argued that there was no default on its part.
• The State Government submitted that all efforts were made to locate the family members of missing persons and that compensation was promptly paid.
• The State Government contended that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against police officers named by the Commission and were taken to a logical conclusion.
• The State Government argued that it was too late to interfere and issue directions to challenge the orders of acquittal or discharge, some of which had already been unsuccessfully challenged in higher forums.
• The State Government submitted that with the passage of time, no directions were warranted in the petition.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the issues addressed by the Court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the State Government had properly implemented the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission.
2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings against erring police officials were adequate.
3. Whether the State Government had provided adequate legal aid to the victims of the riots.
4. Whether the State Government had conducted proper investigations into riot-related offenses.
5. Whether the compensation provided to the victims was adequate and timely.
6. Whether the State Government had taken adequate steps to trace the missing persons and compensate their families.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to come to its conclusion.

• Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: The Court used this Act to establish that while the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission were not binding, they could be enforced once accepted by the government.
• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 12: The Court interpreted this provision broadly to include victims of communal violence under the category of “ethnic violence,” thus making them eligible for legal aid.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 108: The Court acknowledged the legal presumption of death for a person not heard of for seven years, which was relevant to the issue of compensation for missing persons.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the fundamental right to life with dignity, which includes living in an atmosphere free from communal tension, thus establishing the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 301(2): The Court used this provision to highlight how advocates could have assisted the Criminal Courts during the trials.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by a concern for justice and the rights of the victims of the 1992-93 Mumbai riots. The Court emphasized the State’s failure to maintain law and order and protect its citizens, which resulted in significant loss of life and property. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to provide redressal to the victims and ensure that the State fulfills its obligations. The Court also considered the long passage of time and the need to bring closure to the matter, while ensuring that justice is not denied.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning: Issue 1

Logical Reasoning: Issue 2

Logical Reasoning: Issue 3

Logical Reasoning: Issue 4

Logical Reasoning: Issue 5

Logical Reasoning: Issue 6

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The State has a responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain law and order.
• Victims of communal violence are entitled to compensation and legal aid.
• The recommendations of inquiry commissions should be implemented in good faith.
• There should be accountability for police misconduct.
• The State must make all possible efforts to trace missing persons and compensate their families.
• Delays in providing compensation should be addressed with interest payments.

The Court considered the arguments and authorities presented by both sides and concluded that the State had failed to fully implement the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission and provide adequate compensation to the victims of the riots.

The Court did not accept the State Government’s argument that it was too late to interfere in the matter. It emphasized the importance of providing justice to the victims, even after a long period of time.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for enhancement of compensation due to the passage of time, but it did direct the State to pay interest on delayed payments to compensate for the delay.

The Court highlighted the importance of the Legal Services Authorities and the need for them to effectively render legal services to victims of violence.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The recommendations of a Commission appointed under the 1952 Act cannot bind the Government. The Courts cannot compel the Government to act upon the report. But, once the Government accepts the recommendations, a Writ Court can issue a mandamus for the implementation of the recommendations as it becomes an obligation of the Government to implement the recommendations.”
• “Under Clause (e) of Section 12 of the 1987 Act, a person who is subjected to ethnic violence, is entitled to legal services under the 1987 Act… Therefore, these incidents of December 1992 and January 1993 are the incidents of ethnic violence within the meaning of clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the 1987 Act.”
• “Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers a right on every citizen to live with human dignity… If the citizens are forced to live in an atmosphere of communal tension, it affects their right to life guaranteed by Article 21.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The State has a constitutional obligation to protect its citizens and maintain law and order.
• Victims of communal violence are entitled to compensation and legal aid.
• The recommendations of inquiry commissions, once accepted by the government, must be implemented effectively.
• The State must ensure accountability for police misconduct and take steps to prevent future incidents of violence.
• The Legal Services Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing legal assistance to victims of violence.
• Delays in providing compensation to victims of violence must be addressed with interest payments.
• The State must make all possible efforts to trace missing persons and compensate their families.

This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving communal violence and the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens. It also highlights the importance of implementing the recommendations of inquiry commissions and ensuring that victims of violence receive timely and adequate compensation. The judgment emphasizes that the State’s obligation to protect its citizens extends beyond maintaining law and order to ensuring their right to live with dignity.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions to the State Government:

1. A Committee headed by the Member Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA) will be formed to monitor the implementation of the directions issued by the Court. The State Government will appoint a Revenue Officer (not below the rank of Deputy Collector) and a Police Officer (not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police) as the other two members of the Committee.
2. The State Government must submit a report to the Committee containing details of 168 missing persons, including their names andaddresses, within a period of 3 months.
3. The Committee will make all possible efforts to trace the legal heirs of the 168 missing persons and ensure that they are paid compensation as per the applicable Government Resolutions.
4. The State Government will pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the respective Government Resolutions until the date of actual payment.
5. The State Government will make all possible efforts to trace the accused persons in the cases which were closed as ‘A Summary’ and ensure that the concerned Courts take appropriate steps for tracing them.
6. The State Government will constitute a special cell in the office of the Director General of Police to assist the Courts in tracing the accused persons.
7. The State Government will ensure that all eligible victims of the riots, who have not yet been compensated, are paid compensation as per the applicable Government Resolutions.
8. The State Government will continue to be guided by the recommendations of the Srikrishna Commission for police reforms.