Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996
12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the various facets of the problem of the custodial death in the said D. K. Basu's case (1997 Cri LJ 743) and further observed as under (Para 22) :
Saheli, A Women'S Resources Centre, ... vs Commissioner Of Police, Delhi Police ... on 14 December, 1989
15. In Saheli. A Women's Resources Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly laid down that it is now well settled that the State is responsible for tortious act committed by its agency. The Court directed that compensation be paid to the mother of the deceased, who was done to death, on account of beating and assault by the police.
Peoples' Union For Democratic Rights ... vs Police Commissioner, Delhi Police ... on 13 January, 1989
In Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters one of the labourers who was taken to the police station for doing some work and on demand for wages was severely beaten and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. It was held that the State was liable to pay compensation and accordingly directed that the family of the deceased labourer will be paid Rs. 75,000/-as compensation. This was the case when the death had taken place sometime in the year 1974.
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Ravikant S. Patil on 19 March, 1991
In State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil an under-trial prisoner was handcuffed, and taken through the streets in a procession by police during investigation. The Court observed that the under trial prisoner's fundamental right under Article 21 was violated and directed the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation to the respondent, whose fundamental right under Article 21 was violated.
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
In another celebrated case Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Apex Court observed that the Supreme Court and the High Courts being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State of course, has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law. The Court held that on violation of citizen's fundamental rights the Court can grant compensation. In the said case the Court directed the State to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Nasiruddin (Father Of Deceased Mohd. ... on 27 November, 2000
In support of her submission she placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Shri Nasiruddin (Father of Deceased Mohd. Yasin), reported as 2001 (1) JCC (Delhi) 57 : (2001 Cri LJ 4925). In the said judgment, the amount of compensation was reduced from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The ratio of the said case has no application to the facts of the instant case. In the said case counsel for the State submitted that the deceased was a criminal and very violent person. Whereas, no such behavior is attributed to deceased, Sayyed Masoom Ali.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1