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unlawful the moment its lawful justification is withdrawn”."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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more