Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 1000
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can an investigating officer be immediately held liable to pay compensation in a case of custodial death, even before their liability is determined? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while hearing an appeal against a High Court order directing an Investigating Officer to pay compensation in a case of custodial death. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, clarifying that compensation recovery from the officer should only occur after their liability is established in the ongoing proceedings.
Case Background
The case originated from a criminal writ petition filed by the parents and daughter of one Pravin, who allegedly died an unnatural death while in police custody at the Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, after reviewing the documents, directed the State of Maharashtra to pay ₹7 lakhs as compensation to the petitioners. The High Court further ordered that this compensation amount be recovered from the Investigating Officer-In-charge of the relevant police station at the time of the incident.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Pravin dies in police lock-up at Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded. |
| N/A | Criminal Writ Petition No. 39/2015 filed by Pravin’s family in the High Court. |
| N/A | High Court directs the State to pay ₹7 lakhs as compensation. |
| N/A | High Court orders recovery of compensation from the Investigating Officer-In-charge. |
| 10-12-2018 | Supreme Court modifies the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, after considering the documents, directed the State to pay a compensation of ₹7 lakhs to the family of the deceased, Pravin. Additionally, the High Court ordered that the compensation amount be recovered from the Investigating Officer-In-charge of Crime No. 104 of 2013, Vimantal Police Station, Nanded. The Investigating Officer then appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of recovery.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416], which established the principle of strict liability of the State for the acts of its public servants, particularly in cases of violation of the fundamental right to life. The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“54. Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer.”
The Court also referred to Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2011) 9 SCC 354], where it was held that the State should initially pay the compensation and then recover it from the erring officials after an inquiry.
Arguments
The Investigating Officer-In-Charge argued that the High Court’s direction to recover the compensation amount from him was premature. He contended that his liability or responsibility for the custodial death of Pravin had not yet been determined, and therefore, he should not be held liable for the payment at this stage.
The State, represented by its counsel, acknowledged that proceedings were ongoing to determine the liability for the death of Pravin. The State did not object to the modification of the High Court’s order.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Premature Recovery of Compensation | Liability of the Investigating Officer not yet determined. | Investigating Officer |
| Premature Recovery of Compensation | Investigating Officer should not be held liable for payment before liability is established. | Investigating Officer |
| Ongoing Proceedings | Proceedings are pending to determine liability for Pravin’s death. | State of Maharashtra |
| No Objection to Modification | State does not object to modifying the High Court’s order. | State of Maharashtra |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was correct in directing the recovery of compensation from the Investigating Officer before his liability was determined.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in directing the recovery of compensation from the Investigating Officer before his liability was determined. | The Supreme Court held that the recovery of compensation from the Investigating Officer should only occur after their liability is established in the ongoing proceedings. The Court modified the High Court’s order accordingly. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Established the principle of strict liability of the State for the acts of its public servants in violation of the fundamental right to life. |
| Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2011) 9 SCC 354] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Held that the State should initially pay compensation and then recover it from erring officials after an inquiry. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Investigating Officer’s submission that recovery is premature as liability is not determined. | The Court agreed with this submission and modified the High Court’s order. |
| State’s submission that proceedings are pending to determine liability. | The Court acknowledged this and stated that recovery should be after liability is fixed. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] | The Court relied on this case to reiterate the principle of strict liability of the State for its public servants’ actions that violate fundamental rights. |
| Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2011) 9 SCC 354] | The Court used this case to support the view that the State should initially pay the compensation and then recover it from the erring officials after their liability is established. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of fairness and the need to ensure that individuals are not penalized before their liability is established through due process. The Court emphasized that while the State is liable to pay compensation in cases of custodial death, the recovery of that compensation from individual officers should only occur after a proper determination of their culpability.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fairness and Due Process | 60% |
| Precedent and Legal Principles | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s direction, stating:
“We therefore modify the aforesaid direction of the High Court and state that as and when the liability for the crime in question is fastened, the State shall be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the concerned erring officials.”
The Court clarified that the State is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the concerned erring officials only after their liability for the crime in question is established.
Key Takeaways
- The State is primarily liable to pay compensation in cases of custodial death.
- Recovery of compensation from individual officers can only occur after their liability is established through due process.
- The principle of strict liability of the State for the actions of its public servants remains upheld.
Directions
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s direction, stating that the State is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the concerned erring officials only after their liability for the crime in question is established.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that while the State is strictly liable to pay compensation in cases of custodial death, the recovery of that compensation from individual officers should only occur after a proper determination of their culpability. This reinforces the principle of due process and ensures that individuals are not penalized before their liability is established.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Amol Vitthalrao Kadu vs. State of Maharashtra modifies the High Court’s order, ensuring that the recovery of compensation from the Investigating Officer will only occur after their liability is determined. This ruling upholds the principles of fairness and due process in cases of custodial death, reinforcing the State’s responsibility while protecting individual officers from premature penalties.