S.S. AHLUWALIA ~

V. ~

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 16, 2001

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 : i\rticles 21 and 32.

C'ompensation-Riot victirrts-Sikhs in Delhi and other parls of count1y killed in the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister-Delhi High c Court granted compensation to the dependents of those killed in the 1?ots after the assassination-W1it petition filed in Supreme Courl seeking to extend the benefit of the said High Court judgment to the entire count1y-Held: Jn the nature of the circumstances of the case, it is very d{[ficult to extend the decision of the High Court to all the States without detailed examination-High Cou11s

D of respective States to deal with the matter-Hence, lVrit petition transferred to High Courts of respective States.

In the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister, many Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of the country were killed. The Delhi High Court granted compensation to the dependant• of those killed in the riol'

E after the assassination. The present writ petition seeks to extend the hen- .., efit of the judgment of the Delhi High Court to the entire country.

Disposing of the petition, the Court

HELD : 1. In the nature of the circumstances of the case, it is very difficult for this Court to extend the decision of the Delhi High Court to all F the States without making a detailed examination of the circumstances arising in each case. Such examination cannot he done by this Court.

''If Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the High Courts to deal with the matter in respect of the allegations made in thi• writ petition in respect of the State falling in its jurisdiction by treating this writ petition as a

G petition tiled in that High Court. These proceedings, therefore, shall stand transferred to the respective High Courts. [470-D-G]

Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi i\dministration, CWP No. 1429 of 1996 decided on 5-7-1996, referred to. .,..

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : W1it Petition (C) No. 232 of H 1997.

S.S. AHLUWALIA v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 469

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

A .... "

Mnkul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Vijay Panjwani, Y.P.

Mahajan, Hemani Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Kail ash Vasdev, S. Vanna, Mrs.

H. Wahi, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Ms. Madhur Dadlani, S.K. Agnihotri, Ms. Binu Tarnta, D.S. Mehra, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Ameeta V. Duggal, T. Sridharan, S.S.

Shinde, S.V. Deshpande, R.C. Verma, C. Sidharth, Brijender Chahar, Ashok B

Mathur, Ms. A. Subhashini, H.S. Parihar, K.S. Parihar, Anil Srivastava, B.B.

Singh, K.R. Nagaraja, K.S. Bhati, R.S. Jena, J.S. Attri, R.S. Sodhi, Ashol K.

Srivastava, Rajiv Mehta, Prem Nath Malhotra, K.H. Nobin Singh, Ms. Malini Poduval and D.M. Nargolkar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c

RAJENDRA BABU, J. In the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 there were several killings of Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of the country between October 31, 1984 till November 1984 which involved arson, looting and murder. A Committee was constituted D headed by Justice R.N: Misra of this Court which made an inquiry and reported that Sikhs killed in those riots were 3874 in Delhi , 127 in Kanpur and 69 in Bokaro. Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 titled Bhajan Kaur

v. Delhi Administration was filed in the High Court of Delhi for paying compensation to the dependents of those killed in the riots after the assas- E sination of Smt. Indira Gandhi as the State had a duty to protect the life of its citizens and the State ought to pay compensation thereof. The High Ccurt of Delhi by its order dated July 5, 1996 held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution it is the duty of the State to create a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their F life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopard- 'I ised or endangered. If in any circumstance the State is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, directed payment G of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that this direction should apply to similar cases also. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed seeking to extend the benefit of the judgment in Bhajan Kaur •

v. Delhi Administration (supra) to the entire country and for certain other "' reliefs. It is brought to our notice that the number of persons killed in each of the States is as under: H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2001] 2 S.C.R.

A Nos.

State - Killed - -f

' 3874 Delhi 1 Rajasthan 3 Orissa B 106 Haryana 2 Himachal Pradesh 120 Bihar 98

M.P. 260 Uttar Pradesh 9 Maharashtra 4473 c

Certain amounts have been paid to some of the dependents of those killed.

Certain claims have been made in para 13.3 of this writ petition setting

D ant certain facts which need to be verified. After this petition was filed notices were issued to the Governments of different States and they have filed responses in each one of those cases stating the steps that have been taken by them in cases where there had been death' ?r other kinds of violence resulting in injuries or loss of property. But in the nature of the circumstances of the case, it is very difficult for us to extend the decision of the High Court E of Delhi in Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi AdministraJion (supra) to all the States ., without making a detailed examination of the circumstances arising in each case. Such examination cannot be done by us. Therefore, it would be appropriate for us to direct the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Patna, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad,

F and Bombay in the State.s of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa to deal with the matter in respect of the allegations made herein in respect of the State 't' falling in its jurisdiction by treating this writ petition as a petition filed in that High Court. These proceedings, therefore, shall stand transferred to the respective High Courts. A copy of the petition with Annexures and response G of the respective State Governments shall be sent to the High Court for appropriate action.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. •

'JI'

V.S.S.

Petition disposed of.

H ,.