Death in custody in Uttar Pradesh
This is another case of illegal detention for non-payment of land revenue, which unfortunately also resulted in the victim’s death. The Commission had taken cognizance of a complaint by a social activist, Shri Sharda Belvi, about the death of a 75-year-old resident of Orai district in Uttar Pradesh. The victim, Shri Parmai, had allegedly died in custody of starvation and thirst. He had been detained for being a defaulter of Land Revenue amounting to Rs. 4,000/-. He had been arrested on this charge by the Tehsildar on 23 May 1998 and kept in the lock-up of the Tehsil without being provided with any food or water till 2 June 1998. The postmortem did not reveal any kind of injury.
In response to the Commission’s notice, the District Magistrate Jalaun admitted that Shri Parmai had been arrested because of the default in payment of Land Revenue but denied that the deceased had not been provided with drinking water. He also added that the provision of food in such cases was normally made by the defaulter’s family members and if this was not possible the Land Development Bank provided allowance for food at a rate of 50 paise per meal which was to be added to the amount due from the defaulter. Denying any violation of human rights, the district Magistrate said that the family of the deceased had been paid Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
The Commission got the matter investigated by its Investigation Division. The report of the investigation team criticised the conditions in which loan defaulters were kept in custody and recommended award of Rs. 1.00 lakh by way of `immediate interim relief’ to the next of kin of Shri Parmai.
The Commission was surprised by the insensitivity of all the concerned authorities and by their utter ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court long back for such situations. Going by the Supreme Court verdict, the Commission has said that unless the conclusion is reached after a fair inquiry that the default in the discharge of contractual liability to repay the loan, has some element of bad faith verging disowning of the obligation, mere default to repay was not enough to detain the defaulter. It felt that in the present case no attempt was made to address the real issue. Neither the Tehsildar nor any other authority held any inquiry. The detention of Shri Parmai was illegal and his tragic death while in detention made it worse.
The liability of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the act of the Tehsildar and other officials acting in their official capacity, for recovery of bank loan as arrears of land revenue, could not be disputed on the admitted facts alone. The payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the family members of the deceased was a mere pittance and did absolve the State Government from making adequate recompense to the next of kin of the deceased.
The Commission has, thus directed payment of Rs.1.00 lack to the next of kin of Shri Parmai by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It has also reiterated its recommendation that all revenue officers in this State be apprised of the Supreme Court decision in this regard which has laid down the law on the point requiring strict compliance thereof in all such cases.
In response to the Commission’s notice, the District Magistrate Jalaun admitted that Shri Parmai had been arrested because of the default in payment of Land Revenue but denied that the deceased had not been provided with drinking water. He also added that the provision of food in such cases was normally made by the defaulter’s family members and if this was not possible the Land Development Bank provided allowance for food at a rate of 50 paise per meal which was to be added to the amount due from the defaulter. Denying any violation of human rights, the district Magistrate said that the family of the deceased had been paid Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
The Commission got the matter investigated by its Investigation Division. The report of the investigation team criticised the conditions in which loan defaulters were kept in custody and recommended award of Rs. 1.00 lakh by way of `immediate interim relief’ to the next of kin of Shri Parmai.
The Commission was surprised by the insensitivity of all the concerned authorities and by their utter ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court long back for such situations. Going by the Supreme Court verdict, the Commission has said that unless the conclusion is reached after a fair inquiry that the default in the discharge of contractual liability to repay the loan, has some element of bad faith verging disowning of the obligation, mere default to repay was not enough to detain the defaulter. It felt that in the present case no attempt was made to address the real issue. Neither the Tehsildar nor any other authority held any inquiry. The detention of Shri Parmai was illegal and his tragic death while in detention made it worse.
The liability of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the act of the Tehsildar and other officials acting in their official capacity, for recovery of bank loan as arrears of land revenue, could not be disputed on the admitted facts alone. The payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the family members of the deceased was a mere pittance and did absolve the State Government from making adequate recompense to the next of kin of the deceased.
The Commission has, thus directed payment of Rs.1.00 lack to the next of kin of Shri Parmai by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It has also reiterated its recommendation that all revenue officers in this State be apprised of the Supreme Court decision in this regard which has laid down the law on the point requiring strict compliance thereof in all such cases.