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unlawful the moment its lawful justification is withdrawn”."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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more