Compensation for atrocities committed by Officers of Enforcement Directorate

The Central Government has been directed to grant an `immediate interim relief’ of Rs. 50,000/- to a victim of atrocities perpetrated by some officers of the Enforcement Directorate. The Commission, for the first time in its history, has ordered compensation for a human rights violation by the Enforcement Directorate.

This case was taken cognizance of, on a petition dated 26 December 1997 to the Commission by one Shri Prabhakar L. Mehta. He had alleged that some officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, had raided his residence and both he and his wife were picked up at 1.30 p.m. from their residence and were taken to the office of the Directorate. While his wife was released at night, the petitioner was kept in custody overnight and tortured to coerce him to furnish false statements as a witness in an ongoing investigation of the Directorate. In the process, he has alleged that he was brutally assaulted, physically tortured and denied food and water. The passports of both the petitioner and his wife were illegally taken away without making reference to their seizure in the Panchnama.

Upon a notice issued by the Commission to the Enforcement Directorate, a report was sent which held that there was no substance in the complaint of Shri Mehta. The Commission then asked its own Investigation Division to conduct an independent inquiry. The Investigation Division’s report substantially upheld the contention of Shri Mehta.

As a prima-facie case of violation of law and violation of fundamental human rights of the petitioner had been established, the Commission forwarded the petition of Shri Mehta alongwith the report of its own Investigation Wing to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to register a case under appropriate provisions of law, cause investigation and accordingly set the process of criminal law in motion. The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the Directorate of Enforcement seeking to know as to why `immediate interim relief’ under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, should not be awarded to the victim as his human rights had been violated by public servants.

The Enforcement Directorate contended that on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, a complaint case was pending in the courts of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. In view of the pendency of the criminal case, the National Human Rights Commission could not grant immediate interim relief as this would seriously prejudice the Directorate’s case in the criminal prosecution, and that the Commission should await the outcome of the criminal case before exercising its powers of recommendation.

The Commission, after going through the response of the Directorate and the facts collected by the Investigation Division, concluded that the petitioner had been assaulted at the office of the Directorate which had resulted in grievous injuries to him. This was also borne out by the medical evidence report. Since a criminal prosecution was pending, the Commission refrained from making any comments that would reveal the identity of the officers involved in the assault. But it was convinced that there was a strong prima-facie case to establish the human rights violations of the petitioner. No law entitles the public servant to violate human rights of a person being interrogated on the suspicion of a charge. The granting of any relief under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is for violation of human rights. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the Commission, therefore, directed that the petitioner be granted a relief of Rs.50,000/-.

The Commission has also mentioned that in the pending prosecution, the parties were free to adduce evidence in support of their case. The concerned court was free to consider independently the evidence on record and decide the case on merits without being in any way, influenced by the proceedings by the Commission