Beenu Rawat v.UOI-PIL–Human Rights Violations-Police Atrocities on AAP volunteers.
ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.446 OF 2013
BEENU RAWAT & ORS ... PETITIONERS
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J.
The petitioners claim to be young
volunteers of ‘Aam Aadmi Party’ (AAP) engaged in selfless work for the
improvement of democratic institutions of this country and also fight for
justice. They have approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following reliefs:
(a)
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to order an independent
investigation by a Special Investigation Team into the abovementioned incident
of police atrocities which took place on 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police
Station against the petitioners and if such allegations are found correct, pass
further consequential and necessary directions, including initiation of
criminal prosecution as well as disciplinary proceedings against the police officers
of the Delhi Police found involved and also against those senior police
officers at whose behest this vindictive act of atrocity was done;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other writ or direction to award monetary compensation to the petitioners for
their illegal arrest and torture by the Delhi Police which has resulted in
gross violation of their fundamental rights to live with dignity as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
(c) pass such other and further
order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case.”
The incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokal
Puri Police Station in Delhi which is mentioned in prayer no. (a) noted above,
occurred in course of a protest by the volunteers of (AAP) at Gokal Puri Police
Station since morning hours. The protestors wanted registration
of an FIR in respect of an alleged occurrence of rape of a poor woman by two
persons in Bhagirathi Vihar.
Allegedly the police was reluctant
to register the FIR and hence a number of volunteers including the petitioners
joined the protest.The FIR was ultimately registered around 2.30 p.m. and the
protestors were informed of the same. A demand was made for a copy of the FIR.
According to respondents the copy could not
be given to others because of the nature of the alleged crime which
requires that name of the victim be not disclosed. According to petitioners the
copy of the FIR was not given even to victim’s husband. It is the case of the
petitioners that when they were planning to wind up the protest, they were
suddenly rounded up by a large number of policemen and
mercilessly beaten by them. The manner of chase and beating by lathi gave an impression
to the petitioners that the police action was not to disperse the petitioners
but to teach them a lesson. As per allegations, the police also used abusive
language and told the protestors that they will be taught a lesson so that they
do not indulge in such kind of protests in future. Initially, police arrested seventeen
volunteers but three of them were let off as they were minor girls.
Subsequently, petitioner Nos. 2 and 10 were also taken into custody and
allegedly beaten in police custody although they claimed that they had come to
the police station later only to enquire about the incident. The nineteen
petitioners claim to have sustained serious injuries on head, back, arm and legs. One of them
(petitioner no.17) has sustained fracture in lower ulna but he managed to run away.
According to the case of the
petitioners the police had indulged in unlawful use of force and inflicted injuries
before arrest and also during custody, leading to injuries to the petitioners;
the arrest was unlawful which is sought to be justified by fabricated evidence for
rioting etc.; by breaking window glasses and tearing of some
papers in the police station.
According to the petitioners a serious case
was attempted to be made out through subsequent statement of one ASI of police,
Ms. Sushila. There is no such incident mentioned in the FIR bearing no.
251/2013 dated 19.06.2013 registered at P.S. Gokul Puri and even before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate she had alleged that only her scarf (dupatta)
was pulled by protestors. The petitioners have claimed that the Commissioner of
police, Delhi, has made an incorrect statement that Delhi police has videos of
protestors vandalizing the police station. To decide the case it is not
necessary for this Court to delve deep into allegations made by the petitioners
or those against them by the police
which has lodged a criminal case of rioting etc. as noted above. This is
because there is no prayer made in this writ petition seeking any kind of
intervention in the investigation of police case registered against the
petitioners. Even the first prayer made by the petitioners is to
order Since a claim was made that unlawful
acts of the protestors had been recorded through videography which was available with the respondents, learned
Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra made arrangements for
screening of the video tape for our
perusal. The video footage shown to us revealed that none of the protestors
were carrying any arms or even brickbats in course of the protest. The initial
part of the incident discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a friendly
atmosphere. Thereafter, when copy of the FIR was shown from a distance but not
made available to any one, the slogans increased and the
tone could be perceived by some persons as irritating. Barring some protestors
rest were pushed out of the gate of police station without any resistance or
any untoward incident. The crowd outside the gate apparently did not disperse.
The last part of the video footage fleetingly shows use of lathis by the police
men upon the protestors. Thereafter, the recording was stopped and
appears to have been resumed after lapse of sometime to show some broken glass
panes, brickbats in very limited number and some broken spectacles lying on the
ground, a grim reminder of use of force.
Learned senior counsel for the
petitioners Mr. Shanti Bhushan has relied upon some past incidents,specially
one relating to unfortunate death of a police constable in the course of
demonstration against the gang rape to a paramedical student “Damini” in December,
2012, followed by another unfortunate case of a five years’ old victim “Gudiya”
which led to protest by members of AAP and in course of
the same petitioner no.1 was slapped by an Assistant Commissioner of Police of
Delhi force which led to suspension of the said ACP. He also referred to some
allegations against the erstwhile Delhi Police commissioner. On the basis of those
incidents and allegation it was submitted that Delhi police cannot be relied
for fair investigation in a case of present nature involving members of ‘AAP’
and therefore
the Court should order for fair investigation by an independent agency.
.
On the other hand, Mr. Luthra
submitted that police itself acted fairly and did not submit charge-sheet against
any of the accused persons arrested for causing death of constable Subhash
Tomar.He pointed out that the concerned ACP who had slapped petitioner No.1
was placed under suspension. According to him the allegations that the
erstwhile Delhi Police Commissioner was close to a white
collared criminal, has no substance and that matter cannot have any effect upon
the investigation of the present incident.
In our considered view,it is not
necessary to examine the effect of earlier incidents for the purpose of
deciding the present writ petition. There is no dispute that petitioners have
received injuries but according to counter affidavit,these were due to some of
the protestors falling down on the vehicles parked along the
walls of the compound and there was no lathi charge or any act of beating of
the protestors.Such statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit cannot
be accepted in view of the last part of the video footage already noted
earlier. A glimpse of action taken by the police is available in paragraph 8 of
the counter affidavit wherein it is claimed that Police resorted to minimal use
of force which was only enough to disperse a large violent crowd and safeguard the
police personnel. No part of the video footage shows the crowd to be very large
or indulging in any physical violence. Even if this version in the counter affidavit
is accepted in part, one is left to wonder why the petitioners who had injuries
on their bodies had to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse with
the crowd which was allegedly large and violent.It is also intriguing as to
why the FIR bearing No.251/13 for rioting etc.was registered at 5.35 p.m. after
eighteen persons were apprehended at 3.30 p.m.and not before their arrest if
they had vandalized the 18 police station and caused damage to
the public property.
In the light of the aforesaid
discussions and the fact that the video footage recorded at the instance of the
police does not show acts of rioting or any arms or brickbats in the hands of
the protestors and the recording was stopped as soon as police started using lathis
upon the protestor, we are left with no option but to hold, at least prima
facie, that in the incident in question, peaceful protestors were subjected to beating
by lathis etc. by the police force which included policemen from the concerned
police station as well as force called from adjoining police station, P.S.
Jyoti Nagar and P.S. Bhajanpura.The counter version of the respondents that the
petitioners indulged in rioting and damaged public property is neither
supported by photographs contained in Annexure R.2 (colly) nor by the video
footage shows to this Court. In that view of the matter, the whole incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police Station, District North-East,
Delhi requires to be investigated/enquired by an independent agency or by a
Special Investigation Team. Considering the possibility of our arriving at this
opinion we had requested learned counsel for the rival parties to provide us
proposals containing names of some persons who could be entrusted with
conducting investigation in the said incident. On behalf of the petitioners two
names have been proposed which are as follows:
1. Sh. I.C.Dwivedi, IPS (RTD.),
Former Director General of Police, Uttar
Pradesh,
Address: 9/26, Vishal Khand, Gomati Nagar,
Lucknow.
2. Sh. N.Dilip Kumar, IPS (Retired)Special
Commissioner Delhi Police also worked as Joint Commissioner of police
(Vigilance) Delhi Police Worked in CBI for seven years Address:
16 A, Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
On the other hand, on behalf of the
respondents only a letter addressed to Sh. Sidharth Luthra, leaned Additional
Solicitor General along with copy of an order dated 31.10.2013 issued from the
office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been submitted to us to show that
since during the course of hearing of this matter this Court had expressed the
need for an impartial or fair investigation by
some other competent setup, the Commissioner of Police Delhi has approved for
formation of a Special Investigation Team headed by Sh. Bhisham Singh DCP/Crime
to work under close supervision of Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime,Delhi.
So far as investigation of the FIR
No. 251/13 is concerned, in our considered view it has rightly been transferred
from police station Gokal Puri to a Special Investigation Team. However that cannot
take care of the petitioners’ grievances that they have been subjected
to excessive use of force and abuses etc. and that the force used was not at
all justified and hence hey have been deprived of their fundamental right to a life
of dignity. In view of our prima facie findings noted above, we are of the view
that the grievances of the petitioners require investigation by an authority having
statutory jurisdiction in such matters. If the State had itself suggested names
of the persons who could constitute Special Investigation Team for the purpose,
the matter would have been different and we could have considered to direct for
formation of such a team by the State by selecting persons from the names suggested
by the parties. But in the absence of such option, we direct the National Human
Rights Commission to enquire into the complaint of the petitioners regarding
violation of their fundamental rights particularly one under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Such direction is granted in view of Section 12(A) of
the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Under that Act the definition of
“Human Rights” is large enough to include rights relating to
life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions:-
(1) Investigation of FIR No.251/13,
as per order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, dated 31.10.2013 shall be
carried out by Special Investigation Team and not by the police officials of
P.S. Gokul Puri.
(2) The complaint of the petitioners
as made before this Court regarding violation of their fundamental right to
life and liberty shall be enquired into by the National Human Rights Commission
expeditiously. For that purpose the Commission may use its statutory powers
including those under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993.
The Commission shall take further
required steps and action as per law after concluding the enquiry/investigation
so that persons(s) found guilty may be subjected to required penalty according
to law, without undue delay.
The writ petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent.
J.(G.S. Singhvi)
J.(Shiva Kirti Singh)
J.(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi,
November 19, 2013
