NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, Delhi High Court last week held the state completely responsible for the safety of lives of its subjects and ordered a compensation of Rs 3.5 lakh each to the widows and families of those killed in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the Capital, In his 20page order, Justice Anil Dev Singh came down heavily on the state saying it was for the state and its functionaries to ensure protection of life and liberty of individuals, He called a “cruel joke” the Rs 20,000exgratiaawarded by the Delhi administration to the families of the deceased. He further felt that the amount was “unrealistic and does not equip them to lead a life of dignity and proper human existence.”

Deciding that the earlier compensation as “inadequate and unfair,” he ordered an enhanced compensation of Rs 2 lakh with interest from October 1984 which is about 1.5 Jakh taking the total amount to Rs 3.5 lakh? The administration can make the payment after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to them as engrail grantor compensation, his order said. While the compensation will have to be paid by Delhi administration within a month to petitioner Bhajan Kaur, the State has been directed to constitute a committee to disburse the compensation amount within four months to others.

He was of the view that “While life cannot be measured in terms of money, ex gratia payment should be enough to enable the victims’ families to tide over immediate financial distress.” Comparing the freedom of spirit in Rabindranath Tagore’s poems to the terror and threat to life that the riot victims and families must-have felt he said, “It is not open to the State to say that the violations are being committed by private persons for which it cannot be held accountable.” He added, ‘*Message must go to the mischief mongers that the administration means business and their nefarious designs would be thwarted with an iron hand.”

Basing his argument on Article 21 he stressed on safeguarding the freedom of life and liberty by taking adequate measures, failing which the lofty purpose of the Article would be lost. He feared, “it is obvious that there will be no use of the nights conferred by Article 21 if the State does not exact compliance of the same from its officials and functionaries and private persons.”

Article extracted from this publication >>  July 10, 1996