The Commission was intimated about the death in police custody on 12 July 1995 of one Haji Mohd. Nabuji Tentwala by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. It was stated that he was arrested by the police for interrogation in the Gaikwad Haveli Police Station and was brutally beaten resulting in his death.
A notice was issued to the State of Gujarat through its Chief Secretary to show cause within six weeks as to why the Commission should not recommend payment of interim relief under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the next of kin of the deceased.
The Secretary to the Government of Gujarat Home Department in a letter dated 19 June 2004 stated that criminal offences have been registered against the police personnel responsible for the beating up of the accused and departmental action has also been initiated. Since criminal and departmental proceedings have already been initiated and awaiting final outcome, it was requested by them that the show cause notice for award of interim compensation may be withdrawn and further action may be considered after the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending before the court.
Responding to the State's request, the Commission said the stand of the Government of Gujarat becomes logically unacceptable and legally untenable as the State has acknowledged that human rights violation had taken place. It also observed that by no stretch of imagination could it be argued that award of 'Immediate interim relief' envisaged in section 18(3) of the Act has to be dependent upon the strict establishment of criminal liability after a full dress court trial. If this view is accepted, the relief will then neither be 'immediate' nor 'interim'.
The idea of 'immediate interim relief' does not therefore, presuppose the establishment of criminal liability of the offender in a court of law as a precondition for the grant of the 'relief' nor does it depend on whether any civil litigation is either pending or prospective. A welfare State must recognize its obligation to afford 'relief' to its citizens in distress, particularly those who are victims of violations of their human rights by public servants. The limiting of such statutory relief only to cases in which criminal liability of the offending public servant is established in a Court of law beyond reasonable doubt is to thwart an otherwise civilized piece of legislation by importing totally irrelevant limitations. The Commission also pointed out that the ground urged by the Government in this case is misconceived.
The Commission reiterated that the State is liable to pay 'interim relief' for the loss of life of the deceased to the next of kin. It went on to direct that since the State has failed to show any acceptable, logical or reasonable cause against the recommendation of the Commission to pay "interim relief". Therefore, a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh be paid by the State by way of "interim relief' to the next of kin of the deceased. The compliance report it directed should be submitted to the Commission within four weeks.