NHRC directs UP Government to compensate unjustified detention of farmers
The National Human Rights Commission had issued directions to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, through its Chief Secretary, to pay "immediate interim relief" of Rs.10,000/- each, to a number of farmers who were detained unjustifiable for about a fortnight and that too without proper dietary provisions.
The Commission was seized of this case on receipt of a complaint including a press report, which had alleged the arrest and detention of several farmers in makeshift jails to recover arrears of land revenue from them. The complaint also alleged that the detained farmers were not given proper and adequate food while in custody. They were given a dietary allowance of 50 paisa per person per day.
The report called for from the District Magistrate Jalaun by the Commission, stated that the District Administration had taken up a special drive for recovery of land revenue from defaulter farmers. The defaultees had been arrested pursuant to warrants of arrest issued against them after following due procedure of law. They were detained in the civil lock-up of the Tehsil. The report also said that since the family and friends of the detained farmers were making arrangements for food etc., the State administration catered for the meals of only those who were unable to make their own arrangements.
The Commission was of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case revealed insensitivity of the concerned authorities as well as their utter ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court for such situation.
The Apex Court has held that "to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his willful failure to pay inspite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness….". The judgement further held that "The simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past, or alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it. The provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. Here considerations of the debtor’s other pressing needs and strained circumstances will play permanently".
Thus the Commission felt that in the present case no attempt was made to address the real issue and reach a proper conclusion. No inquiry was held by the Tehsildar or any other authority. The jurisdictional fact of the default resulting from omission verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation was absent, without which the power to detain could not be invoked.
Thus according to the Commission, the detention of several farmers for a period of about a fortnight and that too without proper arrangements, specially for the meals, was totally unjustified. The State of which was under obligation to make proper arrangements for the detenues could not abdicate this obligation merely on the ground that the arrangements were be made by their relatives or friends. The diet allowance of Re. 0.50 paisa per person must have been fixed several decades back and was grossly in adequate to meet the cost of even one square meal for a person.
The Commission, thus other than giving directions for the financial compensation to the detenues, has asked the UP Government to frame guidelines in consonance with the Supreme Court judgement for use of the concerned authorities who are in-charge of making recoveries of land revenue etc. It has also directed the revision of the existing norms of dietary allowance for the civil prisoners, where they are inadequate, to meet the cost of diet of the inmate.
The UP Government has been asked to comply with the Commission’s orders by the first week of October 2000.
The Commission was seized of this case on receipt of a complaint including a press report, which had alleged the arrest and detention of several farmers in makeshift jails to recover arrears of land revenue from them. The complaint also alleged that the detained farmers were not given proper and adequate food while in custody. They were given a dietary allowance of 50 paisa per person per day.
The report called for from the District Magistrate Jalaun by the Commission, stated that the District Administration had taken up a special drive for recovery of land revenue from defaulter farmers. The defaultees had been arrested pursuant to warrants of arrest issued against them after following due procedure of law. They were detained in the civil lock-up of the Tehsil. The report also said that since the family and friends of the detained farmers were making arrangements for food etc., the State administration catered for the meals of only those who were unable to make their own arrangements.
The Commission was of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case revealed insensitivity of the concerned authorities as well as their utter ignorance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court for such situation.
The Apex Court has held that "to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his willful failure to pay inspite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or other grave illness….". The judgement further held that "The simple default to discharge is not enough. There must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past, or alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it. The provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. Here considerations of the debtor’s other pressing needs and strained circumstances will play permanently".
Thus the Commission felt that in the present case no attempt was made to address the real issue and reach a proper conclusion. No inquiry was held by the Tehsildar or any other authority. The jurisdictional fact of the default resulting from omission verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation was absent, without which the power to detain could not be invoked.
Thus according to the Commission, the detention of several farmers for a period of about a fortnight and that too without proper arrangements, specially for the meals, was totally unjustified. The State of which was under obligation to make proper arrangements for the detenues could not abdicate this obligation merely on the ground that the arrangements were be made by their relatives or friends. The diet allowance of Re. 0.50 paisa per person must have been fixed several decades back and was grossly in adequate to meet the cost of even one square meal for a person.
The Commission, thus other than giving directions for the financial compensation to the detenues, has asked the UP Government to frame guidelines in consonance with the Supreme Court judgement for use of the concerned authorities who are in-charge of making recoveries of land revenue etc. It has also directed the revision of the existing norms of dietary allowance for the civil prisoners, where they are inadequate, to meet the cost of diet of the inmate.
The UP Government has been asked to comply with the Commission’s orders by the first week of October 2000.