Public Authorities/State Must Compensate Victims For Extra-Detention As It Violates Right To Life!

O P Gandhi Vs Tihar Jail

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

27/09/2016

CIC/SA/A/2016/000884

About/from the judgment:

Public Authorities/State Must Compensate Victims For Extra-Detention As It Violates Right To Life!

 

The Central Information Commission (CIC) through Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu in O.P. Gandhi v. Tihar Jail directed the state/public authorities to compensate a prisoner who lost out on his freedom due to extra detention thus violating his fundamental right to a meaningful life guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine. But after collecting information on remission and other aspects through 36 RTI applications he contended that he was detained for an extra length of four days. The question for consideration was The question for consideration was ‘other detriment’ of extra-detention, and compensation. Finally, the appellant prayed for Rs 1000 as costs and compensation for extra-detention of 14 days.

 

The commission opined that since the order of remission to be granted to all the convicts who had maintained good conduct in the jail and had not been punished during preceding one year 15.08.2013 to 14.08.2014 the appellant should have been released on that day itself. The authorities knew that the appellant has to be released on that day as per the remission order yet he was detained till 15.08.2014. According to calculation of the appellant he lost 14 days of freedom and assuming that the order was given on 11.08.2014 as per the contention of the respondents the appellant lost four days of freedom. Article 21 under the Constitution guarantees every Indian citizen right to personal life and liberty. An important question that came up was whether the state/public authority could be made liable for false imprisonment. Landmark case Rudul Shah v State of Bihar [AIR 1983 SC 1086] and another important case Bhim Singh MLA vs State of J&K and Ors. [AIR 1986 SC 494] were relied upon wherein the Supreme Court held that the state has to compensate for extra detention.

Read the Judgment

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Formats for use
Please reload

Talk to our volunteer on our #Helpline

8882-498-498

Single Helpline Number For Men In Distress In India

Join our mailing list!  Stay up-to-date on upcoming projects, offers & events.

  • Follow Daaman on Facebook
  • Follow Daaman on Twitter

©2018-2020 Daaman Welfare Society & Trust.

All rights reserved.

Beware, anyone can be a victim of gender bias in society and laws! 

Don't wait: Schedule a conversation with a trusted, experienced Men's Rights Activist to find out how only awareness is the key to fight and remove prevailing gender bias against men in society.