Crucial To Distinguish Between Citizens' Legitimate Expectations And Unreasonable Demands From State: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate or reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands made by citizens from the State.

“…undoubtedly the citizens' expectation of protection of their life and liberty by the State is a fundamental aspect of governance in any society. Citizens look to their government to provide safety, security, and a legal framework that safeguards their rights and well-being. However, it's crucial to distinguish between legitimate and reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands when it comes to the role of the State,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined.

The court said that the legitimate expectations may refer to reasonable and justifiable hopes that individuals have from the State, which evolve around the protection of basic human rights, rule of law, access to justice, and security.

“Citizens have every right to expect the State to provide these essential services as part of its social contract. On the other hand, there are situations where individuals may raise demands which do not fall within such scope. These demands may arise out of private affairs, personal disputes, or expectations that extend beyond the boundaries of what the State can reasonably provide or fall under remedy specifically provided under law”.

Justice Sharma made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by a man seeking compensation of over Rs. 83 lakhs from the Delhi Government for a gunshot injury suffered by him in 2018.

The man was shot by an individual and an FIR was registered under Sections 307, 506 and 34 of IPC read with Sections 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act. His case was that he had undergone multiple surgeries and got operated in Medanta Hospital due to which he incurred huge medical expenses.

As such, he sought compensation of Rs. 18,60,000 for medical expenses, Rs. 35 lakhs for loss of livelihood for about five years and Rs. 30 lakhs for mental and physical sufferings.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Sharma said that the man had sought compensation from the Delhi Government for the harm inflicted on him by one individual but the allegations leveled by him were yet to be proved during the trial, for which the criminal law had been already set into motion.

“The benefit of provisions of Cr.P.C. i.e. Sections 357/357A shall be available to the petitioner, as per law, as far as compensation is concerned, after conclusion of trial. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the present petition,” the court said.

Analyzing the legal framework for grant of compensation to victims of a crime, the court noted that neither Section 357 nor 357A(3) of CrPC applied since the trial had yet not concluded and judgment or order on sentence was not passed.

“Thus, the Trial Court cannot provide any compensation at this stage to the victim in the present case i.e. the petitioner herein. The provision of Section 375A (4) of Cr.P.C. also has no application in the present case since the accused persons in the present case have been identified, chargesheet against them stands filed and the trial has already begun,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Pradeep Kumar Arya, Vishal Sheoran, Gaurav Chaudhry, Pulkit Chadha, and Arpit Bamal

Counsel for Respondents: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari for State; Advocate Kunal Mittal

Case Title: Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment