The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a significant ruling in a case involving compensation for custodial deaths in Meghalaya, bringing a temporary halt to a Meghalaya High Court order. The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, directed,
“Until further order(s), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that the compensation as determined by the National Human Right Commission (NHRC) shall be paid by the petitioner (State government).”
This order, passed on January 22, underscores the ongoing legal debate over the appropriate response to custodial deaths.
The case originated from a suo motu public interest litigation initiated by the Meghalaya High Court, focusing on identifying and compensating the next of kin of prisoners who suffered unnatural deaths in state custody from 2012 to 2015. The High Court’s investigation revealed 53 custodial deaths in Meghalaya since 2012, with 28 classified as unnatural.
In response to the NHRC’s recommendation for states and union territories to establish a compensation policy for custodial violence and death, the Meghalaya government set compensation amounts for unnatural custodial deaths. However, the High Court found these amounts inadequate and revised them upwards, mandating the State Government to pay Rs. 15 lakhs for victims below 30 years of age, Rs. 12 lakhs for those aged 30 to 45, and Rs. 10 lakhs for victims above 45 years of age.
The High Court’s judgment was emphatic in its language, stressing the need for substantial compensation in cases of custodial death. The court stated,
“If police brutalities and inhuman treatment of persons in custody have to be arrested, the compensation for custodial death has to be pegged at a level where the State will bleed to make the payment; not what the State is happy to pay off.”
This statement reflects the court’s stance that the compensation should not only be compensatory but also serve as a significant deterrent to prevent future occurrences of such incidents.
Also read- Supreme Court Marks 75 Years: PM Modi To Inaugurate Event (lawchakra.in)
Furthermore, the High Court made a poignant remark about the gravity of custodial deaths, saying,
“A death in custody is a slur on a civilized State.”
This comment underscores the court’s view that such deaths are a serious blot on the reputation and moral standing of the state.
The State of Meghalaya, in appealing to the Supreme Court, argued against the High Court’s method of setting compensation, claiming it was based on subjective assessment and interfered with the State’s policy formulated in accordance with NHRC’s recommendations. The State also contested the High Court’s adoption of age criteria for compensation, arguing that compensation for custodial death should be based on the loss of life itself, not on potential future earnings.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the High Court’s order reflects the complex nature of determining appropriate compensation in cases of custodial deaths. It highlights the delicate balance that needs to be struck between state policy, judicial intervention, and the fundamental rights of individuals, especially in cases involving state custody and alleged human rights violations. The case continues to be a focal point in discussions about state responsibility and the quantum of compensation in instances of custodial violence and death.
Also read- Supreme Court Upholds Centre’s Decision To Classify Medical Devices As ‘Drugs’ (lawchakra.in)