ANITA THAKUR & ORS. versus GOVT. OF J & K & ORS.
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 50, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 50 
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. 
v. 
GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 118 of2007) 
AUGUST 12, 2016 
[A. K.· SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Constitution of India : Arts. J9(1j(a), (b) and (c) - Right to 
hold peaceful demonstration/Right to assemble/Right of free 
movement - Allegation by writ petitioners that Respondent-
authorities manhandled them while they held peaceful protest march 
- Held: The right to hold peaceful demonstrations in order to air 
grievances is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the 
sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order - Thus, 
while the citizens are guaranteed fimdamental right of speech, right 
to assemble for the purpose of carrying peacefit! protest processions 
and right of free movement, reasonable restrictions on such right 
can be put by law - On facts, it was the petitionerslprotesiors who 
took the law into their hands - However, the police personnel 
continued the use of force beyond limits even after controlling the 
mob and thus misused their power - To that extent, fundamental 
right of the petitioners was violated due to police excesses -
Compensation awarded to the petitioners - Police excesses -
Compensation. 
Human rights : Use of excessive police force - Held: Amounts 
to violation of human rights and human dignity. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Holding peaceful demonstration in order to air 
their grievances and to see
that their voice is heard in the relevant 
quarters is the right of the people. Such a right can be traced to 
the fundamental freedom that is guaranteed under Articles 
19(l)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Article 19(l)(a) 
confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country, this 
provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit 
in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive 
language. Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble and, thus, 
guarantees that all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully 
and without arms. Right t~ move freely given under Article 
50
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
19(1)(d), again, ensures that the petitioners could take out 
peaceful march. The right to peaceful protest is now recognized 
as a fundamental right in the Constitution. However, the said 
rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the 
sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order. It is for 
this reason, the State authorities many a times designate 
particular areas and routes, dedicating them for the purpose of 
holding pnblic meetings. [Paras 8 and 9) [56-H; 57-A-B, C-E) 
2. Provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. are in the form of statutory 
provisions which give powers to the State to ensure that such 
public assemblies, protests, dharnas or marches are peaceful and 
they do not become 'u11/awf ul'. At the same time, while exercising 
such powers, the authorities are supposed to act within the limits 
of law and cannot indulge into excesses. In the present case, 
initially it was the petitioners/ protestors who took the law into 
their hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a violent one 
and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the 
police. On the other hand, even the police personnel continued 
the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob 
and thus misused their power. To that extent, fundamental right 
of the petitioners, due to police excess, has been violated. In 
such circumstances, in exercise of power under Article 32 of the 
Constitution,
compensation awarded to the petitioners. [Paras 
11 and 14) [58-C; 60-D; 61-A-B) 
Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh. 1979 Crl.L.J. 1211 -
approved. 
Saheli, A Women:~ Resources Cenrer. Through Ms. 
Nalini Bhanot & Ors. vs. Co111111issioner of Police. Delhi 
Polic_e Headquarters & Ors.(1990) 1 SCC 422 : 1989 
(0) Suppl. SCR 488; .loginder Kaur i·s. The Punjab 
State & Ors. (1969) ACJ 28; The State of Rajasthan 
vs. Mst. Vidhywati & Anr.(l 962) Supp 2 SCR 989; S111t. 
Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera (through the Supre111e 
Court Legal A id Committee) rs. State of Orissa & 
Ors.(1993) 2 sec 746 : 1993 (2) SCR 581 -
explained. 
Case Law Reference 
1979 Crl.L.J. 1211 
approved 
Para 11 
51 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
52 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
SUPREME COUIU REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
1989 (0) Suppl. SCR 488 
explained 
Para 14 
(1969) ACJ 28 
explained 
Para 14 
(1962) Supp 2 SCR 989 
explained 
Para 14 
19.93 (2) SCR 581 
cxplainl·cl 
Para 14 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURl~:)iC flON: Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No. 118 of2007. 
[Under Article 32 ofThe Constitution oflndia] 
K. K. Venugopal, Prof. Bhim Singh, Sr. Advs., S. K. 
Bandyopadhyay, Dr. (Ms.) Chandra Rajan, B. S. Billowria, Dinesh Kumar 
Garg, Advs. for the Petitioners. 
Sun ii Fernandes, Ms. Astha Sharma. Puneeth K. G., Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Cow1 was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. In the present writ petition filed by the 
petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, the petitioners 
who are migrants of the State of Jam mu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred 
to as the 'migrants') state that they had planned to take out a peaceful 
protest march upto Delhi for ventilating their grievances. However, when 
they reached near Katra in Jammu & Kashmir, the respondent authorities 
through their police personnel had beaten up and manhandled these 
migrants in a most brutal and barbaric manner on 07.08.2007. It is the 
allegation of the petitioners that this incident has violated their rights 
guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution 
of India and prayers are made in the petition for taking criminal action 
against the erring officials, including respondent Nos. 3 to 9, and
also to 
pay compensation to each of the petitioners and other Jammu migrants 
who suffered serious injuries, in the sum of Rs. I 0 lakhs. Prayer is also 
made to order the special investigation into the said episode of07.08.2007. 
2. Giving detail background of the grievances of the migrants 
leading to the said incident, it is mentioned that Ms. Anita Thakur, 
petitioner No. I, is a General Secretary of the Jammu & Kashmir 
Panthers Party whereas petitioner No.2 is an Advocate and also the 
Secretary of the said Party, who have been espousing the cause of the 
Jammu migrants (about 2200 families) who were forced to leave their 
homes between 1996-1999 in view of the terrorist attacks on these 
families. Third petitioner is a senior Journalist who was also assaulted 
and arrested on 07.08.2007 for giving media coverage of the incident in
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
53 
[A. K. SJKRI, J.] 
question. 
A 
According to the petitioners. these migrants are living in most 
miserable conditions and it became difficult for them to survive. Out of 
these 2200 migrant families. about 950 families have been residing in 
broken huts ofTalwara camp. For redressal of their grievances, a writ 
petition in the nature of PIL (PIL No. 534/1999) was filed in the High 
Court of Jammu & Kashmir wherein order dated 06.09.2002 was passed 
by the High Court directing that persons from Poonch, Rajouri, Doda, 
Udhampur and Jammu provinces, who had suffered and been forced to 
migrate on account of militancy would be entitled to the same treatment 
as migrants from the Kashmir Valley. This order was challenged by the 
State ofJammu & Kashmir by filing SLP (C) No. 34/2003 in this Cou11. 
In that SLP, the order dated 12.07.2006 was passed to the following 
effect: 
"Pursuant to our direction. the Relief Commissioner (Migrants) 
filed an affidavit on 0~.12.2004 and in the affidavit the details are 
given regarding the relief measures given to the Kashmir migrants 
and it is stated that the relief is being provided to various migrants 
who are Kashmiri migrants and to migrants other than Kashmiri 
migrants. In view of the averments stated in the affidavit, we do 
not find any necessity to give further directions. However, counsel 
for the respondents stated that some of the migrants are not being 
regularly paid the
relicfmeasures and since March 2004 they are 
not given any benefits. The Relief Commissioner may look into 
the matter and see whether they have been provided with all relief 
measures to which they are entitled as per the policy. lfthere are 
lapses on the part of the officials or any arrears to be paid to the 
migrants, the same shall be made available to them at the earliest. 
The ReliefCommissionerwould beat liberty to consider the migrant 
status of any person and if it is found that if such persons are not 
real migrants he would be at liberty to deny the relief measures to 
such persons. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.'' 
3. It is averred in the petition that in spite of the aforesaid order 
directing the ReliefCommissioner to look into the complnints by migrants, 
who claimed that they were not regularly provirled relief measures since 
March 2004 and to provide a II benefits to 1hc1n. including nrrears. if any, 
no positive action was taken hy the respondents 
This forced the 
petitioners to submit a 111en10rnnd1111110 the Dcp11tv ( 'o•lJlni~.,ioner. Reasi 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
54 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
stating that ifthe order was not implemented within 15 days, the migrants 
would resort to their protest march to Delhi and would meet the Prime 
Minister oflndia for implementation of this order. This was followed by 
another representation dated 23.07.2007 to the Chief Minister, Jammu 
& Kashmir wherein they threatened that on the Government failure to 
implement the order, the migrants woulri ;;::; on strike. 
As nothing happened, on~ I 07.2007, the Talwara migrants started 
their peaceful protest march from Talwara towards Jammu to head to 
Delhi. According to the petitioners, the migrants were stopped about 6 
kms. short of Katra town, at Ghar Baba J itto, after they had covered 
about 20 kms towards Jammu. Police kept them in siege for 5 days. 
The protest marchers who were about 2000 in number il}_cluding old 
persons, women and children were not allowed to proceed and were 
made to sit at that place till 07.08.2007, the fateful day. On 07.08.2007, 
following events occurred: 
(i) At about I pm on this day, the three petitioners (all members of the 
Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party) arrived at Katra, to speak 
with the concerned authorities regarding the plight of the migrants. 
(ii) The petitioners conducted a one hour long discussion with the Dy. 
Commissioner, Reasi, the Tehsildar, Reasi, Superintendent of Police, Reasi 
and the SHO, Katra regarding the migrants' peaceful march. 
(iii) The
migrants resumed their peaceful march, and the petitioners joined 
the march to ensure that there was no undue harassment by the Pol ice. 
(iv) At about 2 pm, 500 armed policemen, blocked the bridge that the 
migrants were about to cross and began attacking the marchers with 
Lathis and teargas shells. 
(v) Petitioner No. 2 attempted to approach the Police which included 
respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to stop the attack, and was taken into custody 
after being brutally assaulted and having his leg broken. He stayed in 
Police custody without medical aid till 9 pm when he was taken first to 
Katra Government Hospital and then shifted to Government Medical 
Hosptial, Jammu at 11.30 pm. Petitioner No. I then attempted to approach 
the Police to secure medical aid for the injured migrants. As soon as she 
entered the Police control zone, she was violently attacked by several 
police women, dragged on the ground for a long distance and put into a 
Police jeep. Petitioner No. I was beaten inside the jeep and also at the 
Police Station. Petitioner No. 3 was also arrested fortrying to cover the
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J.& K & ORS. 
55 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
incident. 
A 
4. Petitioner No. 1 was admitted to the Government Medical 
College Hospital, Jammu on 08.08.2007. Copies of medical reports of 
petitioner No. 1 have been filed by the petitioners. The Bar Association 
of Jammu & Kashmir also started protest against the aforesaid criminal -· 
assault on petitioner No. 2 by abstaining from Courts on 09.08.2007. 
B 
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were released on interim bail on I 0.08.2007 by 
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katra pursuant to the directions of 
the High Court and were thereafter granted regular bail on 14.08.2007. 
5. The petitioners filed contempt petition No. 155/2007 alleging 
violation of this Court's order dated 13 .07.2006 wherein notice was issued · c 
by this Court on 20.08.2007. Thereafter, present petition was filed with 
the prayers as aforesaid, in whf ch show cause notice·"Was issued on 
01.10.2007. 
6. The respondents have appeared and denied the version of the 
petitioners. The official version which has surfaced on record in the 
D 
form of response to the various averments made in the writ petition is 
that about 500 migrants on 01.08.2007 blocked the Reasi-Pouni road 
near Baradari bringing the entire traffic on stand still. Dhama continued 
the entire day and night and the unruly crowd damaged a police vehicle. 
Leaders of the Panther's party in discussions with the administration 
agreed to lift the Dharna. However, they
back tracked and the dhama 
E 
continued. On 02.08.2007, protestors started marching towards Katra. 
Administration at Sula Park requested them to go back. All offers of 
relief were turned down. On 03.08.2007, High Officials ofthe State 
reached Serwad and persuaded the crowd to adopt a realistic and 
pragmatic approach. Suggestions of providing ration and cash relief for 
F 
three months at par with border migrants were given. Migrants initially 
agreed to it and it was decided to gather at Aghar J itto temple where the· 
. ration shall be distributed on the same day. However, the migrants later 
refused the offer and demanded cash relief at par with Kashmiri migrants. 
· High Officials camped at Serwad on 03/04.08.2007 to persuade the 
migrants. On 05/06.08.2007, negotiations continued. Directions were 
G 
given to provide facilities ofwater, medicine, food along with milk packets 
for infants. Some of the demonstrators accepted the relief of the 
Government. However, insofar as petitioners are concerned, instead of 
amicably sorting out the issue, raised a new demand for providing arrears 
for last 40 months. Police authorities informed the migrants that the 
H
56 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
competent authority shall be infonned and that they should return 
peacefully and not march ahead to disturb the on going Amarnath and 
Vishnu Devi Yatris. The agitated protestors, however, took strategic 
positions alongside the. road and started pelting stones on the police 
personnels who were trying to initiate dialogues. Few of them even 
used their Lath is which they were carrying. The crowd marched towards 
Balni Bridge where the police contingent reorganized. However, the 
demonstrators had turned violent and wanted to proceed to Katra. 
Keeping in view the security and in face of no other option, police resorted 
to mild Lathi charge to control the mob. The injured migrants and the 
policemen were taken to PHC-Katra. 17 Policemen along with Mr. 
Ashok Sharma (respondent No. 6) got severely injured and were rushed 
to the hospital as well. Executive Magistrate Tehsildar, Reasi after taking 
stock of the situation and attack on the police authorities by the mob and 
the resulted injuries on police officers and civilians ordered SP Katra for 
Lathi charge and use of tear smoke to disperse the unruly mob. In the 
melee some persons from the mob including Mr. Jhalmeria got injured. 
Respondent No. 6 was injured by the mob and was taken to the hospital. 
Respondent No. 7 was manhandled by petitioner No. I who tore and 
threw away his ranks from his uniform. 
7. It becomes clear from the above that both
the parties are 
accusing each other. At the time of hearing, counsel for the parties 
stuck to their respective stands. In support of their versions, even the 
CDs containing Video of the incident have been filed by both the parties. 
We have seen the CD's filed by both the parties. However, on going 
through the CD submitted, by the respondent State, it becomes clear that 
the agitated protestors were the persons who were instrumental in 
triggering the incident inasmuch as it is they who took the first step in 
disturbing the peace. It is these agitators who started pelting stones on 
the police personnel and even used lathis while attacking the police 
officials. No doubt, these demonstrators wanted to go ahead with their 
march and they were restrained by the police from doing so. At the 
same time, this step taken by the police was at the instance of higher 
authorities and they were given orders that these demonstrators be not 
allowed to proceed with their march. 
8. We can appreciate that holding peaceful demonstration in order 
to air their grievances and to see that their voice is heard in the relevant 
quarters is the right of the people. Such a right can be traced to the 
fundamental freedom that is guaranteed under Articles 19(1 )(a), 19(1 )(b)
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
and 19(l)(c) of the Constitution. Article 19(l)(a) confers freedom of 
speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this provision ensures 
that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly 
manner, without using offensive language. Article 19( I )(b) confers the 
right to assemble and, thus, guarantees that all citizens have the riglit to 
assemble peacefully and without arms. Right to move freely given under 
Article 19( I)( d), again, ensures that the petitioners could take out peaceful 
march. The 'right to assemble' is beautifully captured in an eloquent 
statement that ··an unarmed, peaceful protest procession in the land 
of 'salt satyagraha ', fast-unto-death and 'do or die' is no Jura! 
anathema". It hardly needs elaboration that a distinguishing feature of 
any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent. One cherished 
and valuable aspect of political life in India is a tradition to express 
grievances through direct action or peaceful protest. Organised, non-
violent protest marches were a key weapon in the struggle for 
independence, and the right to peaceful protest is now recognised as a 
fundamental right in the Constitution. 
9. Notwithstanding above, it is also to be borne in mind that the 
aforesaid rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of 
the sovereignty and integrity oflndia, as well as public order. It is for 
this reason, the
State authorities many a times designate particular areas 
and routes, dedicating them for the purpose of holding public meetings. 
I 0. On the other hand, there is always a possibility that a public 
rally may become unruly, which can mean damage to life and property. 
This is when a public assembly becomes 'unlawjit!', which is defined in 
Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Under these circumstances, 
the district administration and the police are permitted to disperse the 
crowd to prevent injuries or damage. This may entail the use of force in 
a controlled and specified manner. We also have Section 268 of the IPC 
which defines 'public nuisance' as any act 'which must necessarily 
cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have 
occasion to use any public right'. Further, Section 143 of the Cr.P.C. 
empowers an Executive Magistrate to prohibit the repetition or 
continuation of public nuisances and Section 144 Cr.P.C. permits the 
issuance of directions to members of the public to abstain from a certain 
act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his 
possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that 
such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, 
annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human 
57 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
58 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or 
an affray. These legal provisions provided a wide array of powers to 
the police, including the right to use reasonable force to disperse any 
unlawful assembly and maintain public order. 
11. Thus, while on the one hand, citizens are guaranteed 
fundamental right of speech, right to assemble for the purpose of carrying 
peaceful protest processions and right of free movement, on the other 
hand, reasonable restrictions on such right can be put by law. Provisions 
of IPC and Cr.P.C., discussed above, are in the form of statutory 
provisions giving powers to the State to ensure that such public 
assemblies, protests, dharnas or marches are peaceful and they do not 
become 'unlmr.fitl '. At the same time, while exercising such powers, 
the authorities are supposed to act within the limits of law and cannot 
indulge into excesses. How legal powers should be used to disperse an 
unruly crowd has been succinctly put by the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court in K<1r<1m Singh v. l/<1rd<1y<1/ Singlt
1 wherein the High Court 
held that three prerequisites must be satisfied before a Magistrate can 
order use of force to disperse a crowd: 
First, there should be an unlawful assembly with the object of 
committing violence or an assembly of five or more persons likely to 
cause a disturbance of the public peace. 
Second, an Executive
Magistrate should order the assembly to 
disperse. 
Third, in spite of such orders, the people do not move away. 
12. Before adverting to the issue at hand, we would like to make 
some general remarks about the manner in which these demonstrations 
are taking shape. Recent happenings show an unfortunate trend where 
such demonstrations and _protests are on increase. There are all kinds 
of protests: on social issues, on political issues and on demands of various 
sections of the society of varied kinds. It is also becoming a common 
ground that religious, ethnic, regional language, caste and class divisions 
are frequently exploited to foment violence whenever mass 
demonstrations or dharnas etc take place. It is unfortunate that more 
often than not, such protestors take to hooliganism, vandalism and even 
destroy public I private property. In the process, when police tries to 
control, the protestors/mob violently target policemen as well. Unruly 
1 1979 Crl. L.J. 1211
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
groups and violent demonstrations are so common that people have 
become to see them as an appendage of Indian democracy. All these 
situations frequently result in police using force. This in turn exacerbates 
public anger against the police. In Kashmir itself there have been 
numerous instances where separatist groups have provoked violence. 
In this scenario, task of the police and law enforcing agencies becomes 
more difficult and delicate. In curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful 
assemblies, police has to accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness 
and precision. 
Thus, on the one hand, law and order needs to be 
restored and at the same time, it is also to ~e ensured that unnecessary 
force or the force beyond what is absolutely essential is not used. 
Policemen are required to undergo special training to deal with these 
situations. Many times the situations turn ugly or go out of control because 
oflack of sufficient training to the police personnel to deal with violence 
and challenges to their authority. There are various documents in the 
form of police manual and even international covenants proscribing use 
of unnecessary force and mandating that force should only be used 
when it is absolutely necessary~. Even when used, it should be minimum 
2 These docun1ents, inter a/ia, are: 
(a) Model Rules on the Use of Force by the Police against unlawful Crowds (Adopted 
by the Inspectors
General of Police Conference, 1964 ). 
(b) Police Manuals : For instance. the Kerala Police Manual. 1970 lays dO\ln a step-
by-stcp procedure to deal with unlawful assemblies: 
• The police must invariably secure the presence of a n1agistrate where it anticipates 
a breach of peace 
• The decision to use force and the type of force to be used is to be taken by the 
magistrate 
• Once the order for the use of force is given by the magistrate. the extent of force 
to be used will be determined by the senior-m,ost police officer 
• The extent of force used must be subject to the principle of minimum use of force 
• Use of force should be progressive - i.e. firearms must be used as a last resort if tear 
smoke and lathi charge fail to disperse the crowd 
• Common tearsmoke which causes no bodily injury and allows recovery of affected 
persons should be used 
• When the crowd is large and the use of tcarsmoke is likely to serve no useful 
'\A 
purpose, the police may resort to lathi charge 
• Lathi charge can only begin if the crowd refuses to disperse after suitable warning 
• Clear warning of the intention to carry out a lathi charge should be given through 
a bugle or whistle call in a language understood by the crowd. If available. a riot 
flag must be raised. If the police officer in-charge is satisfied it is not practical 
to give a warning, s/he 1nay order a lathi charge without warning. 
• Lathi blows should be aimed at soft portions of the body and contact with the head
or collarbone should be avoided as far as practicable 
• The lathi blows must not cease until the crowd is completely dispersed 
• If the crowd fails to disperse through the lathi charge. the magistrate or the 
competent officer may order firing 
59 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
60 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
and proportional to the situation and its use to be discontinued as soon as 
the danger to life and property subsidised. 
13. In those cases where assembly is peaceful, use of police 
force is not warranted at all. However, in those situations where crowd 
or assembly becomes violent it may necessitate and justify using 
reasonable police force. However, it becomes a more serious problem 
when taking recourse to such an action, police indulges in excesses and 
crosses the limit by using excessive force thereby becoming barbaric or 
by not halting even after controlling the situation and continuing its tirade. 
This results in violation of human rights and human dignity. That is the 
reason that human rights activists feel that police frequently abuses its 
power to use force and that becomes a serious threat to the rule of law. 
14. When we examine the present matter in the aforesaid 
conspectus, we find that initially it was the petitioners/protestors who 
took the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a 
violent one and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the 
police. On the other hand, even the police personnel continued the use 
of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob. In the process, 
they continued their lathi charge. They continued to beat up all the three 
petitioners even after overpowering them. They had virtually 
apprehended these
petitioners making them immobile. However, their 
attack on these petitioners continued even thereafter when it was not at 
• The fullest warning in a clear and distinct manner must be given to the crowd to 
inform them that the firing will be effective 
• If after the warning. the crowd refuses to disperse the order to fire may be given 
• The police are not on any account allowed to fire except on a comn1and given by 
their officer 
• A warning shot in the air or firing over the heads of the crowd is not pern1itted 
• An anned force should maintain a safe distance fron1 a dangerous crowd to prevent 
being overwhelmed. or increasing the chances of inflicting heavy casualties. 
• Aim should be kept low and directed at the most threatening part of the crowd 
• Firing should cease the moment the crowd show signs of dispersing 
• All help should be rendered to convey the wounded to the hospital 
• Police officers must not leave the scene of disturbance before satisfying themselves 
beyond reasonable doubt about the restoration of tranquility 
• An accurate diary of all incidents, orders and action along with the time of occurrence 
should be maintained by the police. This will include an individual report by all 
officers involved in the firing. 
• The number of fired cartridges and the balance of unfired cartridges should be 
verified to ensure ammunition is accounted for 
(c) The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRJ) is an independent. non-partisan 
international
non-governmental organisation, mandated to ensure the practical realisation· 
of human rights in Commonwealth countries. CHRI is headquartered in New Delhi and has 
offices .in London and Accra (Ghana). 
(d) Various orders passed by the National Human Rights Commission.
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l 
all needed. As far as injuries suffered by these petitioners are concerned, 
such a situation could clearly be avoided. It is apparent that to that 
extent, respondents misused their power. To that extent, fundamental 
right of the petitioners, due to police excess, has been violated. In such 
circumstances, in exercise of its power under Article 32 of the Constitution, 
this Court can award compensation to the petitioners {See - Saheli, A 
Women's Resources Center, Through Ms. Nalini Bhanot & Ors. v. 
Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters & Ors. 3 ; 
Joginder Kaur v. Tile Punjab State & Ors. 4; The State of Rajastllan 
v. Mst. Vidhywati & Anr. 5; and Smt. Nilabati Bellera@Lalita Bell era 
(through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa 
& Ors. 6}. The ratio of these precedents can be explained thus: First, it 
is clear that a violation of fundamental rights due to police misconduct 
can give rise to a liability under public Jaw, apart from criminal and tort 
Jaw. Secondly, that pecuniary compensation can be awarded for such a 
violation of fundamental rights. Thirdly, it is the State that is held liable 
and, therefore, the compensation is borne by the State and not the 
individual police officers found guilty of misconduct. Fourthly, this Court 
has held that the standard of proofrequired for proving police misconduct 
such as brutality, torture and custodial violence and for
holding the State 
accountable for the same, is high. It is only for patent and incontrovertible 
violation of fundamental rights that such remedy can be made available. 
Fifthly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to cases of 
fundamental rights violation and hence cannot be used as a defence in 
public law. 
15. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the present 
case and finding that even the petitioners are to be blamed to some 
extent, as pointed out above, the only relief we grant is to award 
compensation of' 2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) to petitioner No. I 
and ' 1,00,000 (rupees one Jakh only) each to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, 
which shall be paid to these petitioners within a period of two months. 
16. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 
Divya Pandey 
' ( 1990) 1 sec 422 
'(1969)ACJ28 
' ( 1962) Supp 2 SCR 989 
6 (1993)2 SCC746 
Writ Petition disposed of. 
61 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H