EZLINDA FERNANDES Vs. CHETAN SANGHI SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RIGHT to personal liberty is one of the most cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is available to citizens and non-citizens both. No person can be deprived of his personal liberty even for a minute except in accordance with law. The State and its officers are enjoined to act reasonably and not arbitrarily with utmost care and caution in respect of matters likely to affect personal liberty of a person. This is one of the shocking cases where a non-lunatic was detained in the Government hospital i. e. the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour at least for a few days illegally and arbitrarily. This case involves consideration of relevant principles applicable to cases of this kind discussed below.

(2.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has complained of her illegal detention in the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour during the period commencing from 7-10-1991 until 6-11-1991 without authority of law and in breach of her fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has sought a direction from this Court to the effect that the respondents be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner was illegally and wrongfully detained in the hospital of the said institute without her consent, unreasonably and arbitrarily, for several days even though the petitioner was not a lunatic within meaning of the said expression Lunatic as defined by section 3 (5) of The Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. The respondents impleaded in this petition are : 1) Mr. Chetan Sanghi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panaji-Goa, (2) Mr. Umesh Gaonkar, P. S. I. Ribandar Police Station, (3) State of Goa, (4) The Medical Superintendent, Government of Goa, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour. It is not necessary to make reference to the two other individuals who are impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 in the said petition.

(3.) THE petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 were neighbours at the material time. There were disputes between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 as a result whereof criminal complaints were filed by one side against another at Ribandar Police Station.