1992-93 Bombay Riots : Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Govt To Provide Details Regarding Compensation Paid To Victims

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, A.S. Oka and Vikram Nath sought some clarifications from the State of Maharashtra regarding the compensation paid to the victims of the riots. The State Government ought to file an affidavit before the Apex Court within two weeks providing the following information -

1. whether figure of 168 persons stated to be missing are a part of the 900 deaths identified;
2. whether any compensation had been paid to legal heirs of the persons missing;
3. what is the reference of compensation paid to heirs of victim;
4. whether compensation paid for loss of property;
5. when was compensation paid;
6. time lapse between compensation paid and the incident.

Senior Advocate, Colin Gonslaves appearing for the petitioners, broadly, made three-fold submissions.

1. Legal aid was not extended to the victims of the riot;
2. Adequate compensation was not paid to them;
3. An independent investigation ought to have been conducted, when there were allegations of police involvement in the riots.

Legal Aid

Mr. Gonsalves submitted that in the aftermath of the riot, the victims were left high and dry. There was a serious lack of legal aid support. He beseeched the Court that though, at this stage, it might not be possible to re-open the prosecution, the legal aid system can be strengthened to ensure that in future it is equipped to tackle such situations.

"The failure is a collective failure, it is not the failure of the victim. The victim was in a society where taking action was very difficult. The legal aid to be strengthened."

Referring to the work done by CJI, U.U. Lalit as the Executive Chairperson of NALSA, Justice Kaul stated that, under CJI's aegis, legal aid has achieved new heights. So, the relief sought back in 1988 when the petition was filed might not be relevant in light of the sea changes legal aid has undergone.

"Leave aside the general proposition. Legal aid is now in a very different place. Present CJI has worked hard to strengthen the Legal aid system."

Accepting Justice Kaul's response, Mr. Gonsalves added that though the situation has improved for routine legal aid the same might not be true for cases of mass action.

"Legal aid is not familiar to tackle mass action. Routine legal aid is different from this…There is a case in this Court where tribals are evicted on a large scale as encroachers. There is no legal aid there."

Justice Kaul indicated that proactive steps have already been taken to develop the scope of legal aid in the country in the last couple of years.

Mr. Gonsalves reiterated that no legal aid was provided to the Bombay riot victims.

Compensation

The compensation for each victim was pegged at Rs. 2 lakhs. Mr. Gonsalves vehemently argued that not all have received the compensation and ones who have received it, did so after a lapse of almost two decades. 

"Today victims of the Bombay riots are abandoned. Their attempt to even get compensation failed. Do we as society take collective responsibility for what happened, for the fact that they were left abandoned."

According to him a befitting amount of compensation, which is being paid almost after a delay of three decades, ought not to be anything less Rs. 2crore. He beseeched the Bench to ensure that at least, the victims receive the compensation they deserve -

" A befitting compensation. This will give them hope. Even when the enforcement authority fails them, the executive fails them, they will know that the Court will at least give us money to make our lives (better)"

Reading from the affidavit that had been filed by the State Government on a previous occasion, Justice Oka noted that it records 900 people had lost their lives to the riot, but the legal heirs of all were not compensated. He asked Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Counsel appearing for State of Maharashtra if compensation had been paid to the family members of the 168 people who went missing. Mr. Chitnis informed the Bench that he was not aware of the same.

Independent investigation not conducted 

In January 1993, Maharashtra Government constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice B N Srikrishna to look into the causes of the riots and those responsible for the same. Among other things, the Commission had found that during the riots the State police systematically discriminated against the minority community.

Mr. Gonsalves was perturbed that even after the State of Maharashtra had accepted the Srikrishna Commission report they did not review the outcome of the trials and departmental proceedings, which had exonerated the accused persons, to check whether there was miscarriage of justice. The victims were never contacted to appear in the trial proceedings. They were also kept away from the departmental proceedings. 

Justice Kaul enquired, "Where appeals filed against acquittals?"

Mr. Gonsalves responded, "I don't think so. There was no legal aid."

Justice Kaul was of the opinion that it would not be correct to say that the victims did not have any legal assistance, as several NGOs were helping them out. But, he agreed that the same might not have been 'structured assistance'.

He observed that at this point in time, after a lapse of about three decades, it might not be possible to pass recommendations based on the report of the Commission. Neither can the Court grant relief in the prayer seeking dismissal of police officers from their service, especially when in criminal cases they have been acquitted. Justice Kaul added that though it is true that when there is allegation of involvement of police officers in the riots, independent enquiry ought to have been carried out, but the Court cannot act as an independent investigator.

"Every such investigation has to be independent in character, it is true. But if you do not trust anybody there is also a problem. Judicial process is not an investigating agency. It cannot go and investigate. I do not disagree with any of your propositions but they are general.

Mr. Gonsalves pointed out that even after accepting the observation of the Committee Report erring officers were promoted. He highlighted that all officials accused were exonerated. Both during the trial as well as the departmental proceedings, he submitted, the victims were not involved in the proceedings. 

On perusal of the documents, Justice Kaul noted that some of the matters had travelled to the Supreme Court. He asked the Senior Counsel, in that case, was he also seeking review of the action of the Supreme Court.

" It was not limited to Trial court, some of the matters have reached this Court. Should we review, in some of the matters, what the Supreme Court has done?"

Mr. Gonsalves responded in the affirmative - 

"I would put it this way, if the record showed that there was no evidence and victims were not called to the trial, it is miscarriage of justice right up to the top."

Case Title: Action Committee for the implementation of Sri Krishna Report And Ors. v. UOI And Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order