National Human Rights Commission

Human Rights in India

Submitted By:

AVINASH

M.A CRIMINOLOGY 3RD SEMESTER

LNJN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

CRIMINOLOGY AND FORENSIC SCIENCE.

GGSIP UNIVERSITY, DELHI

CONTENTS

Acknowledgement Introduction Meaning of Human Rights Definition of Human Rights Characteristics and Nature of Human Rights Fundamental Rights in Indian Constitution Main Sources of Human Rights in India Institutions who protect the Human Rights Cases of Human Rights Human Rights violation

Acknowledgement

At the very outset I would like to express my deep gratitude and sincere thanks to the

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for giving me an opportunity to do my

internship.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. S.K. Jain and Mr. Vinudev Sachin for

their help, support and guidance at every junction of the preparation of this project. This

project would not have been possible without their help and knowledge.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all the staffs of library and other

departments who helped in many ways. I also thank the other staffs in NHRC who were

co-operative.

I would also like to thank my fellow classmates, and fellow interns who helped me in

providing their views regarding the topic done in this project.

The views expressed in this report are my own and cannot be attributed to NHRC.

AVINASH

Introduction

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a

person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Human rights

are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for

everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in

both national and international law. The doctrine of human rights in international

practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies

of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a

cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights states, "if the

public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral

language, it is that of human rights." Despite this, the strong claims made by the

doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates

about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the

question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued

philosophical debate.

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of

residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.

We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are

all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of

treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of

international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments

to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect

human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.

Human Rights in India

India got its independence in the year 1947, just a year before the UDHR was adopted.

The founding fathers of Indian constitution were all aware that India’s freedom struggle

had taken place in the context of the demand for basic human rights. Yet economic

backwardness of the country would make it impossible to immediately satisfy all the

aspirations of people. So, they adopted a pragmatic approach. They described certain

rights as “fundamental rights” and laid down certain other rights as fundamental duties

of a citizen were also enumerated.

The Supreme Court of India is the guarantor of the rights according to the Constitution.

The court takes into account fundamental duties while interpreting the constitutional

right.

Human rights in India is an issue complicated by the country's large size, its

tremendous diversity, its status as a developing country and

asovereign, secular, democratic republic. The Constitution of India provides

for Fundamental rights, which include freedom of religion. Clauses also provide

for Freedom of Speech, as well as separation of executive and judiciary and freedom of

movement within the country and abroad.

 Human Rights Watch stated India had "significant human rights problems". They

identified lack of accountability for security forces and impunity for abusive policing

including "police brutality, extrajudicial killings, and torture" as major problems. An

independent United Nations expert in 2011 expressed concern that she found human

rights workers and their families who "have been killed, tortured, ill-treated,

disappeared, threatened, arbitrarily arrested and detained, falsely charged and under

surveillance because of their legitimate work in upholding human rights and

fundamental freedoms.

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the

right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and

cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education , or collective

rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible,

interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement

of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.

MEANING OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. These are moral claims which are

inalienable and inherent in all individuals by virtue of their humanity alone, irrespective

of caste, colour, creed, and place of birth, sex, cultural difference or any other

consideration. These claims are articulated and formulated in what is today known as

human rights. Human rights are sometimes referred to as fundamental rights, basic

rights, inherent rights, natural rights and birth rights.

DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Dr. Justice Durga Das Basu defines “Human rights are those minimal rights, which

every individual must have against the State, or other public authority, by virtue of his

being a ‘member of human family’ irrespective of any consideration. Durga Das Basu’s

definition brings out the essence of human rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, defines human rights

as “rights derived from the inherent dignity of the human person.” Human rights when

they are guaranteed by a written constitution are known as “Fundamental Rights”

because a written constitution is the fundamental law of the state.

Secton 2 (d) of the Act defines "human rights" as "rights relating to life, equality and

dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International

Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".

Characteristics and Nature of Human Rights

Following are the characteristics of human rights:

1. Human Rights are Inalienable - Human rights are conferred on an individual due to

the very nature of his existence. They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their

caste, creed, religion, sex and nationality. Human rights are conferred to an individual

even after his death. The different rituals in different religions bear testimony to this fact.

2. Human Rights are Essential and Necessary - In the absence of human rights, the

moral, physical, social and spiritual welfare of an individual is impossible. Human rights

are also essential as they provide suitable conditions for material and moral upliftment

of the people.

3. Human Rights are in connection with human dignity – To treat another individual

with dignity irrespective of the fact that the person is a male or female, rich or poor etc.

is concerned with human dignity. For eg. In 1993, India has enacted a law that forbids

the practice of carrying human excreta. This law is called Employment of Manual

Scavengers and Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act.

4. Human Rights are Irrevocable: Human rights are irrevocable. They cannot be taken

away by any power or authority because these rights originate with the social nature of

man in the society of human beings and they belong to a person simply because he is a

human being. As such human rights have similarities to moral rights.

5. Human Rights are Necessary for the fulfillment of purpose of life: Human life

has a purpose. The term “human right” is applied to those conditions which are

essential for the fulfillment of this purpose. No government has the power to curtail or

take away the rights which are sacrosanct, inviolable and immutable.

6. Human Rights are Universal – Human rights are not a monopoly of any privileged

class of people. Human rights are universal in nature, without consideration and without

exception. The values such as divinity, dignity and equality which form the basis of

these rights are inherent in human nature.

7. Human Rights are never absolute – Man is a social animal and he lives in a civic

society, which always put certain restrictions on the enjoyment of his rights and

freedoms. Human rights as such are those limited powers or claims, which are

contributory to the common good and which are recognized and guaranteed by the

State, through its laws to the individuals. As such each right has certain limitations.

8. Human Rights are Dynamic - Human rights are not static, they are dynamic. Human

rights go on expanding with socio-eco-cultural and political developments within the

State. Judges have to interpret laws in such ways as are in tune with the changed social

values. For eg. The right to be cared for in sickness has now been extended to include

free medical treatment in public hospitals under the Public Health Scheme, free medical

examinations in schools, and the provisions for especially equipped schools for the

physically handicapped.

9. Rights as limits to state power - Human rights imply that every individual has

legitimate claims upon his or her society for certain freedom and benefits. So human

rights limit the state’s power. These may be in the form of negative restrictions, on the

powers of the State, from violating the inalienable freedoms of the individuals, or in the

nature of demands on the State, i.e. positive obligations of the State. For eg. Six

freedoms that are enumerated under the right to liberty forbid the State from interfering

with the individual.

Fundamental Rights in Indian Constitution

The various civil and political human rights and also the economic, social and cultural

human rights have been guaranteed by the Constitution of India and re-christened as

the “Fundamental Rights”.

The provisions of Part III of the Constitution (Arts. 12 – 35) enshrine the Fundamental

Rights, which are more elaborate than those of any other existing written constitutions

dealing with Fundamental Rights. The constitution as amended by Forty fourth

Amendment Act, 1979, classifies Fundamental Rights under the six categories. The

fundamental rights are elaborated as follows:

Article 12 defines the “State” as “In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the

State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the

Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of

India or under the control of the Government of India.”

Article13 lays down certain restriction on violating fundamental right. The important

significance of this provision lies in the fact that it makes explicit provision for judicial

review of legislative enactments and executive actions as to their conformity with

guaranteed fundamental rights.

Right to Equality (Articles 14 – 18)

The five articles that cover the right to equality are

a. Equality before law and equal protection of law – Article 14

Article 14 consists of two parts namely equality before law and equal protection of the

laws. Equality before law means that no individual should be given any special privilege

by the state. Equal protection of the laws means the right to equal treatment in equal

circumstances. Equality before the law also means treating unequal unequally. For

example, the Supreme Court has recommended that the ‘creamy layer’ of the Other

Backward Classes’ (OBC) should not be given the benefit of reservation.

b. Prohibition of discrimination on ground of religion, race,

caste, sex or place of birth - Article15

There are four aspects of this right mentioned in following Clauses of this Article.

i. Prohibition of discrimination - Article15, Clause (1): This article prohibits the state

from discrimination against any individual or group of individuals. The principle of non –

discrimination is based on equality and dignity.

ii. Access to public places - Article15, Clause (2): This right provides that no citizen

can be denied access to public places, places of entertainment or the use of wells,

tanks, and roads that are maintained out of State funds.

iii. Protective laws for women and children - Article15, Clause (3): A positive

discrimination for women and children is made in the Indian context. Thus provision for

reservation for women, free education for children etc. is provided.

iv. Reservation for backward classes – Article15, Clause (4):

The constitution recognizes the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes as weaker sections of the population. It authorizes the state to make

special provisions for the advancement of these sections of the society.

c. Equality of opportunity in matters of public Employment - Article16:

The aim of article 16 of Indian Constitution is to provide equal opportunity to all citizens

in employment offered by the state or its agencies. This article has five clauses

i. Equality of opportunity – Article 16, Clause (1 )wherein it is stated that equality of

opportunity should be given to all citizens in matters relating to employment or

appointment to any office under the state.

ii. Prohibition of discrimination - Article 16, Clause (2)

This clause prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,

descent, and place of birth, residence or any of them in respect of any employment of

the state.

iii. Residential requirements - Article 16, Clause (3)

It allows the Parliament to make laws that require residential (domicile) requirements in

a State for public employment or appointment.

iv. Protective laws - Article 16, Clause (4)

This Clause allows the Parliament to make protective laws for appointment of backward

classes of citizens who are not adequately represented in the services of the state.

v. Preference to certain persons in religious institutions - Article 16, Clause (5)

This clause prescribes that the Parliament can make laws which require only a person

professing a particular religion to be appointed in a body or institution of that religion.

For example, a Hindu can only be appointed as a priest in a Hindu temple.

d. Abolition of Untouchability - Article17

This is a unique article that has been incorporated only in the Constitution of India.

Article 17 declares that not only Untouchability has been abolished but it also makes

any practice and propagation of Untouchability in any form punishable in accordance

with the law.

e. Abolition of Titles - Article18

The Clause of the Article prohibits the State from conferring any title at all upon any

person. However the State is not prevented from awarding military distinctions, such as

Mahavir Chakra, Param Vir – Chakra etc. for honoring men for their acts of valour or

academic distinctions.

II. Right to Freedom (Articles 19 – 22)

a. Six fundamental freedoms - Article19

Article 19 (1), as amended by the Constitution (Forty Fourth)

Amendment Act, 1979, guarantees to all citizens the following six

freedoms:

i. Freedom of speech and expression

ii. Freedom of peaceful assembly

iii. Freedom of forming associations or unions

iv. Freedom of movement throughout the territory of India

v. Freedom of residence and settlement in any part of the territory of India, and

vi. Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business.

b. Protection in respect of conviction for offences - Article20

This right guarantees protection in respect of conviction for offences, to those accused

of crimes. There are three clauses to this article.

(i) Protection against ex – post, facto legislation – It means that a person cannot be

punished under such a law, for his actions which took place before the passage of the

law.

(ii) Protection against double punishment – it says that no person shall be

prosecuted for the same offence more than once.

(iii) Protection against self incrimination – this clause states that no person accused

of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

c. Protection of life and personal liberty - Article21

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution recognizes the right to life and personal liberty. It

provides that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according

to procedure established by law.”

d. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. -

Article22

The provisions of Article 22 are complimentary to those of Article 21. Article 22 has two

parts; the first part consisting of clauses (1) and (2), deals with persons, who are

arrested under ordinary criminal law and the various rights, they are entitled to; and the

second part consisting of the remaining clauses (3) to (7), is concerned with persons,

who are detained under a law of preventive detention.

III. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)

a. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour -

Article23

The article prohibits traffic in human beings and ‘begar’ and other similar forms of forced

labour.

b. Prohibition of employment of children - Article24

Article 24 of the constitution prohibits child labour. Children below fourteen years of age

cannot be employed in any factory or mine or in any other hazardous employment.

IV. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25 – 28)

a. Freedom of Conscience and Religion - Article25

Article25 reflects the spirit of secularism and recognized freedom of religion to everyone

in India.

b. Freedom to manage religious affairs - Article26

It recognizes the right of every religious order to establish and maintain institutions for

religious and charitable purposes and manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

c. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion -

Article27

The state shall not compel any person to pay any taxes for the promotion of

maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

d. Freedom to attend religious instruction in education Institution - Article28

This article prohibits imposition of religious beliefs by educational institutions on those

who are attending them. Taken together the four Articles (25 to 28) establish the secular

character of democracy.

V. Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29)

a. Cultural right of the individual as well if minorities - Article29

This Article states that every section of the society has the right to conserve its distinct

language, script or culture.

b. Right of minorities to establish and administer Educational institution -

Article30

The State cannot discriminate in granting aid to any educational institution on the

ground that it is under the management of a religious or linguistic minority.

VI. Right to constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Article 32 provides for the Constitutional Remedies, under which, one can move the

Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights and this provision itself

is made one of the Fundamental rights. This is something unique. Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar considered it as the very heart and soul of the constitution.

The other rights that are guaranteed in the Indian Constitution are as follows.

r. Right of property - Article31

t. Power of Parliament to modify the right - Article33

u. Restriction on right while martial law is in force- Article34

v. Parliament empowered to make to enforce certain

Fundamental Right - Article35

By the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, the right to property was eliminated from the list of

Fundamental Right. However though it is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitution

at right. It is also a human right. This was recent ruling by the Supreme Court, while

dismissing an appeal filed by the Karnataka Financial Corporation Challenged a State

High Court order.

MAIN SOURCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA

There are many sources of Human Rights in India. The main Sources of Human Rights

in India are follows:

UN Charter

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1st and 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Convention against Torture

United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment

INSTITUTIONS WHO PROTECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS

There are mainly three agencies in india who Protects theHuman Rights.

National Human Rights Commission

State Human Rights Commission

NGOs related to National Human Rights Commission

The Commission issued instructions that any instance of custodial death must be

reported to it within 24 hours of occurrence. Such information was to be followed by the

submission to the Commission of the relevant post-mortem report, the magisterial

inquest report and a videography report on the postmortem. Unfortunately, it was

observed that there was frequent delay in the sending of these reports. This in turn

delayed the processing of cases of custodial violence in the Commission and the

awarding of interim relief when, prima-facie, there was reason to conclude that a

custodial death had resulted from custodial violence.

Given this unsatisfactory situation, the Commission has issued fresh instructions

requesting that all concerned reports, namely the post-mortem, videograph and

magisterial inquiry reports, must be sent to the Commission within two months of the

incident. The postmortem reports have to be recorded on a new form, designed by the

Commission, which has been circulated to all concerned authorities. Further, in every

case of custodial death, a magisterial inquiry has also to be conducted as directed by

the Commission. It should be completed expeditiously and transmitted to the

Commission within the deadline of two months that has been set by the Commission.

In certain cases of custodial death, and after the post-mortem examination, the viscera

are sent for examination and a viscera report is required. However, such reports also

take time in being received. The Commission has therefore clarified that the post-

mortem reports and other related documents should be sent to the Commission without

waiting for the viscera report, with the latter being sent subsequently as soon as it is

available.

CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION

Case1: Illegal detention of S/Sh. Ramveer Singh, Surendra Singh Delhi - Case No.

3454/30/2000-2001

The Commission received a complaint from Shri Ramveer Singh, resident of District

Etah, Madhya Pradesh alleging that he and one Surendera Singh S/o Bhai Lal were

picked up on 5.1.2001 for interrogation in a murder case, illegally detained at the PS,

Mayapuri where they were beaten and subsequently released on 8.1.2001. 

In response to Commission’s notice, a report received from the DCP(Vigilance) stated

that complainant and Surendra Singh were brought to the PS, Mayapuri by Special Staff

without any legal notice and verification and detained there till 7.1.2001. The report

further stated that an inquiry was held against the Inspector, Bishan Mohan of Special

Staff/SWD, in which he was found guilty and was ‘censured’ for the serious lapse

committed by him. 

On consideration of the aforesaid report, the Commission vide its proceedings dated

14.5.2003 directed to issue a notice to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to show-cause

as to why immediate interim relief u/s 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

be not awarded to the victims. 

The Commission vide its further proceedings dated 21.1.2004 considered the report

received from the office of the Commissioner of Police and held that there had been

illegal detention of the complainant and Surendra Singh from the night of 5/1/2001 till

the morning of 7/1/2001 in violation of their human rights. It directed Commissioner of

Police, Delhi to pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to each of them.

In compliance, a communication received from the Dy. Commissioner of Police(Vig.),

Delhi dated 26.5.2004 indicated that an amount of Rs. 5000/- had been paid by way of

interim relief as recommended by the Commission to each of the two victims. In view of

the compliance report received, the case was closed.

Case2: False implication of Rajinder Singh: Haryana (Case No.810/7/98-99)

One Saubhagyawati of Ballabhgarh, Faridabad alleged inaction by the police in regard

to her complaint regarding harassment of her daughter, Savita, by her husband and in-

laws. She also alleged false implication by the police of Rajinder Singh, husband of

Saubhagyawati’s second daughter, at the instance of Savita’s in-laws. She said that

Rajinder had tried to intervene and get the matter settled, upon which Savita’s in-laws

had lodged a false complaint against him. The report received from the SP, Faridabad

admitted that the Police Station House Officer (SHO), Puran Chand, did not investigate

the case lodged by the petitioner properly. The case filed against Rajinder Singh was

also found to be false and departmental action had been taken against the SHO. The

Commission, after considering the report, held that a false case had been registered

against Rajinder Singh, and the petitioner and her family had to undergo mental torture.

It therefore issued a show cause notice to the SP, Faridabad as to why an amount of

Rs.10,000 be not paid to the petitioner and Rajinder Singh. In reply, the Senior

Superintendent of Police (SSP) pleaded that the case against Rajinder Singh was

cancelled after it was found to be false and that no grounds therefore remained for the

award of compensation. Meeting on 18 September 2001, the Commission however held

that the very fact that the erring officials had committed lapses and had been dealt with

departmentally, was sufficient, prima facie, to establish that there were valid reasons for

the grant of immediate interim relief. The Commission accordingly directed payment of

compensation in the amount of Rs.10,000 to the petitioners. The amount was paid soon

thereafter.

Case3: Death of Salman Dinkar Padvi in Police Firing: Maharashtra (Case

No.1332/13/2000-2001/FC)

Dinakar B. Padvi, Nandurbar, Maharashtra filed a complaint with the Commission

alleging that on 28 June 2000 one leopard entered Khapar town in Taluk Akkalkua,

Nan-Durbar, Maharashtra. Intrigued by the leopard many people gathered to see it. The

Police too tried to catch the leopard alive but as they did not succeed, they opened fire.

According to the complainant, his son Salman Dinkar Padvi was seriously injured in the

police firing and later succumbed to his injuries in the government hospital. The

Commission called for a report in this matter from the Director General of Police,

Maharashtra. In response the Deputy Conservator of Forests admitted to the fact that

Salman Dinkar Padvi had died in the police firing. The Commission also observed that

simply because it was an accidental death it did not absolve the State Government of its

responsibility to pay immediate interim relief under section 18(3) of the Act. to the legal

heirs of the deceased, who according to the complainant was the only bread-winner of

the family.

Considering the fact that the sole bread-winner of the family had died in the firing, the

Commission directed that it be inquired from the Chief Secretary whether the State

Government had given any relief-ex-gratia or otherwise to the next of kin of the

deceased and, if not, whether the Government was considering the grant of some

monetary relief to the next of kin.

In a subsequent report, Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar, Maharashtra sent a report

stating that the dependents of the victim Salman Dinkar Padvi had been granted relief of

Rs. One Lakh from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund and also confirmed disbursement of

the amount. The Commission has since closed the case.

Case4: Torture and gang rape by police officers in Tripura - Case No. 5/23/2003-

2004-WC

The Commission received a complaint from Shri Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre

for Human Rights, New Delhi alleging that a Reang girl was tortured and gang raped by

a group of three Special Police Officers of the State Government of Tripura on

26/5/2003. The victim girl’s family complained to the police station naming the three

guilty SPOs but their complaint was not recorded. 

In response to the notice, a report received from the DGP, Tripura indicated that a case

No. 6/2003 u/s 366 (A), 376, 326 and 34 IPC was registered in Police Station

Raishyabari against the three named persons on 28/5/2003. The medical report

confirmed that the victim, aged 17 years was sexually assaulted and raped. The three

SPOs had been discharged from the service, arrested and sent to jail. In view of the

gravity of the allegation of sexual brutality committed on a hapless girl by the three

SPOS, the Commission directed to issue a notice to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of

Tripura to show cause why interim relief be not granted to the victim girl.  

The Govt. of Tripura informed the Commission that it had paid an amount of Rs.

15,000/- as compensation to the victim Ms. Mithirung Reang. However, the Commission

observed that the offence of rape not only amounts to violation of the human rights of

the victim, but it also tends to violate the mind and scar the psyche of a person

permanently. Besides, it carries a social sigma for the victim and her family. The

Commission, therefore, directed the Govt. of Tripura to pay an amount of Rupees fifty

thousand as immediate interim relief to the victim after adjusting Rupees fifteen

thousand already paid. As the State Government submitted its compliance report in

respect of payment of an amount of Rupees thirty five thousand, the case was closed

on 10/1/2005.

Case5: Negligence of police personnel leading to wrongful confinement of lkram-

ud-din: Uttar Pradesh (Case No.23239/24/1999-2000)

The Commission received a complaint dated 14 January 2000 from Shri Ikramuddin, a

resident of District Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh alleging that a case was registered at the

Police Station Baraut against Ikramu, a resident of Baraut. During trial, the accused did

not appear in the court and non-bailable warrant was issued against him. The police

instead of arresting ikramu, arrested Ikramuddin on 20 June 1999, despite his protest.

He was released on bail by the court, after filing an affidavit that he was not the accused

in the case. A prayer was, therefore, made for stern action against the errant police

officials and for compensation.

Upon notice being issued, the Superintendent of Police, Bagpat submitted a report

which indicated that the Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and the Constable of Police

Station, Baraut had been found guilty of dereliction of duty inasmuch as they did not

make a proper verification before arrest and also because they had made wrong entries

in the record. A departmental inquiry had been instituted against the errant police

officials.

Having regard to these facts which were admitted by the police, the Commission held

that the complainant had suffered great financial loss and mental agony due to wrongful

confinement on account of negligence of police officials and directed the issue of a

show cause notice under Section 18 (3) of the Act to the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

In response to the show cause notice, a report was submitted by the Special Secretary,

Home Department, Uttar Pradesh indicating that the errant police personnel had been

awarded the punishment of censure. The report added that since the police had not

beaten and caused injuries to the complainant, he was not entitled to any financial

assistance.

By its proceedings dated 11 October 2002, the Commission held that the complainant

had been compelled to remain in jail for about one and a half months and that he had

incurred and expenditure of Rs. 10,000/- to get himself released. Having regard to all

the circumstances of the case, the Commission therefore directed the State of Uttar

Pradesh, through its Chief Secretary, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as immediate interim

relief under Section 18 (3) of the Act, to the complainant within 8 weeks.