Skip to main content

Strategic arrest on Friday night violation of Constitution:CIC

Some very important issues came up recently in O.P. Gandhi vs PIO, Tihar Jail before the Central Information Commission (CIC), a body responsible among other issues to deal with violation of Right To Information (RTI).

The issue was an appeal filed by an undertrial prisoner who claimed:-
1) He had been kept in jail beyond term
2) He had been deliberately arrested on a Friday

While hearing the appeal the Ld. Commission made some important proclamations :-

"14. The Commission noticed that appellant has a grievance that he was
unnecessarily kept in prison beyond term on the pretext that he was needed in a
different case. The officers should have enquired about other case before
expiration of term. They kept him in jail for some more days on the excuse that
they were ‘holidays’ for courts etc. From this it appears that prisoner was
detained beyond the period of term.
15. ‘Excessive detention’ like this is a matter of serious concern, as that
violates right to personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21, which
says:
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure prescribed by law.
16. Appellant’s personal liberty can be deprived only till the term of
imprisonment prescribed by court of law continues and not even a day beyond.
Strategically, we hear that, the individuals are arrested during night of Friday so
that they will not be in a position to move the court of law till Monday. Such
detention would be absolute violation of Article 21 and it could be both a crime
and tort (civil wrong) also.
17. The Honourable Supreme Court said in its land mark judgment in Rudul
Shah v State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086 that “the imprisonment would be
unlawful the moment its lawful justification is withdrawn”."
......
18. If there is such a violation, and there is no internal mechanism to redress
that grievances, the individual like appellant in this case, will have no other go
except to file a writ petition before the constitutional courts or civil or criminal
courts seeking remedy for wrongful detention. It shows that the public authority
does not have any internal mechanism to prevent such practices, and to take
action to redress such grievances. It is not proper on the part of public authority,
first to detain the prisoners beyond the term, not to have any mechanism to
receive, hear and provide remedy for excessive detention, and not even giving
correct information to the prisoner seeking under RTI Act. 
.......
20. The Commission noticed that contentions of prisoner appellant and
respondent PIO reveal a prima facie case of excessive detention and that there
is no specific mechanism to take complaints of extra detention and provision for
compensation in such cases. The Commission recommends public authority to 
frame a policy for this purpose and disclose the same under Section 4 (1)(c) of
RTI Act, which says: “PUBLISH ALL RELEVANT FACTS WHILE FORMULATING IMPORTANT POLICIES OR ANNOUNCING DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT PUBLIC”. If they do not have a policy, and that affects the public, the public authority should explain why they do not have a policy on such an important issue. Thus they have a duty to frame a policy and disclose the same to the public."

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more