KHATRI III Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has now come before us after service of notice on the State of Bihar. When this case was taken up for hearing by us on 2nd December, 1980, we expressed our displeasure that the State of Bihar had not chosen to appear in answer to the notice, but this expression of displeasure was made by us on the assumption that the notice was served on the State of Bihar. We are however informed by Mr. K. G. Bhagat, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the notice of the writ petition was served upon the State only on 6th December, 1980 and that is the reason why it was not possible for the State to appear before us on 2nd December, 1980. We accept this explanation effered by Mr. K. G. Bhagat and exonerate the State of Bihar from remissness in appearing before the Court on 2nd December 1980.

(2.) The State has filed before us a counter affidavit sworn by Tarkeshwar Parshad, Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department of the State Government giving various particulars required by us by our order dated 2nd December, 1980. We have also before us the counter affidavit filed by Jitendra Narain Singh, Assistant Jailer, Bhagalpur Central Jail, on behalf of the State and this affidavit gives certain other particulars required by us. The State has also in addition to these particulars, filed statements giving various particulars in regard to the blinded prisoners drawn from the records of the judicial magistrates dealing with their cases. The District and Sessions Judge has also addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court stating that for the reasons given in his letter, no inspection of the Bhagalpur Central Jail has been carried out by the District and Sessions Judge in the year 1980. The Registrar (Judicial) has also furnished to us copies of the statements of the blinded prisoners and B. L. Das, former Superintendent of the Bhagalpur Central Jail, recorded by him pursuant to the order of this Court dated 1st December, 1980. Full and detailed arguments have been advanced before us on the basis of the particulars contained in these documents, but we do not, at this stage, propose to deal with the arguments in regard to each of the blinded prisoners and we shall examine only the broad contentions advanced before us, leaving the arguments in regard to each specific blinded prisoner to be dealt with at a later stage when the writ petition again comes up for hearing.

(3.) The other question raised by Mrs. Hingorani on behalf of the blinded prisoners was whether the State was liable to pay compensation to the blinded prisoners for violation of their Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. She contended that the blinded prisoners were deprived of their eyesight by the Police Officers who were Government servants acting on behalf of the State and since this constituted a violation of the constitutional right under Article 21, the State was liable to pay compensation to the blinded prisoners. The liability to compensate a person deprived of his life or personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with procedure established by law was, according to Mrs. Hingorani, implicit in Article 21. Mr. K. G. Bhagat on behalf of the State, however, contended that it was not yet established that the blinding of the prisoners was done by the Police and that the investigation was in progress and he further urged that even if blinding was done by the police and there was violation of the constitutional right enshrined in Article 21, the State could not be held liable to pay compensation to the persons wronged. These rival arguments raised a question of great constitutional importance as to what relief can a Court give for violation of the constitutional right guaranteed in Article 21. The Court can certainly injunct the State from depriving a person of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law, but if life or personal liberty is violated otherwise than in accordance with such procedure, is the Court helpless to grant relief to the person who has suffered such deprivation Why should the Court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious Fundamental Right to life and personal liberty! These were the issues raised before us on the contention of Mrs. Hingorani, and to our mind, they are issues of the gravest constitutional importance involving as they do, the exploration of a new dimension of the right to life and personal liberty. We, therefore, intimated to the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that we would hear detailed arguments on these issues at the next hearing of the writ petition and proceed to lay down the correct implications of the constitutional right in Article 21 in the light of the dynamic constitutional jurisprudence which we are evolving in this Court.