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unlawful the moment its lawful justification is withdrawn”."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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more