Supreme Court Stays Meghalaya HC Order Fixing Compensation Amount For Unnatural Custodial Deaths

The Supreme Court has issued notice on Meghalaya government's petition challenging an order of the State's High Court, whereby quantum of punitive compensation payable by the government for custodial deaths since 2012 was affixed on the basis of age of the victims.

A three-Judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta stayed the impugned judgment, subject to a condition that the State shall pay compensation amount determined by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Factual Background 

Pursuant to a direction issued by the top Court in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, a suo motu public interest litigation was initiated by the Meghalaya High Court to identify the next of kin of prisoners who admittedly died an unnatural death in State custody (as revealed by NCRB) between 2012 and 2015, and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation.

During the proceedings, it came forth that 53 custodial deaths had occurred in Meghalaya since 2012, 25 of which were due to natural causes, and the rest (i.e. 28) were cases of unnatural death. In May, 2022, it was recommended by the NHRC that all States and Union Territories frame a policy for compensation to victims and their kins in cases of custodial violence and death.

Following NHRC's recommendation, in December, 2022, Meghalaya government published a notification setting the compensation amount for unnatural custodial deaths as follows: due to quarrel amongst prisoners, or torture/beating by police/prison staff - Rs.7.5 lacs, and due to negligence by prison officials or medical/para medical officers, or suicide by the prisoner - Rs.5 lacs.

Finding the same to be inadequate, the High Court set aside the notification and ruled that the State Government would have to pay Rs.15 lacs to the next of kin of a victim who was below 30 years of age (on the date of death), a sum of Rs.12 lacs if the victim was between 30 to 45 of age and, a sum of Rs.10 lacs if the victim was above 45 years of age.

Aggrieved by the same, the State of Meghalaya moved the present petition.

Observations of the High Court

At the outset, the High Court observed that NHRC's recommendation to States/UTs was preceded by a notification by the Haryana government in June, 2021, whereby rates of compensation payable in cases of custodial deaths were notified by making a classification on the basis of the cause of death. It was opined that the NHRC had endorsed the Haryana notification without any comment or independent application of mind.

The classification adopted in the Haryana notification (based on cause of death) did not appeal to the court and the quantification was explicitly termed "unconscionable". It was held that "suitable" compensation, as directed to be determined by the Supreme Court, had to be both compensatory and punitive so as to act as a deterrent.

Although the State contested categorization of certain deaths in custody as "unnatural", the court based its assessment on the criterion that if a person died in the custody of the State, and the State was unable to affirmatively establish that the death was due to natural causes, it was to be inferred that the death was unnatural.

It further noted that in an earlier case, i.e. Smti. Meena S. Marak v. State of Meghalaya (2018), where an 18-year-old had died as a result of police brutality, a compensation of Rs.15 lacs was awarded. The State had accepted that amount and paid the same. Accordingly, it was opined there was no reason to reduce the quantum after 5 years.

"If police brutalities and inhuman treatment of persons in custody have to be arrested, the compensation for custodial death has to be pegged at a level where the State will bleed to make the payment; not what the State is happy to pay off", the court said.

The State's reliance on principle of strict liability was discounted, with the court concluding that State liability in such cases was absolute, unless it was shown that the death occurred due to natural causes.

"A death in custody is a slur on a civilised State", remarked the court. 

State of Meghalaya's Case

In its petition, the State claims that the High Court erred in fixing in-rem rules for payment of compensation by State based on its own subjective assessment, and was not justified in interfering with the State policy, which was formulated in view of recommendations of an expert body i.e. NHRC.

It avers that Meena Marak's case is not a precedent on quantum of compensation. In fact, in that case, a higher compensation was awarded considering special facts, as the victim, a young student, had been tortured in custody after arrest without FIR.

The State disputes the adoption of age criteria by the court for dealing with compensation claims, pointing out that it is adopted in compensation claims for motor accidents. "The Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that compensation for custodial death is being awarded for loss of life of deceased per se and not for loss of probably future earning capacity of deceased for his family," the plea says.

It is further the State's contention that a court may award higher compensation if it is found suitable in particular case, however, there cannot be an in-rem order fixing compensation, despite existence of an Executive policy, which the court does not find arbitrary.

The State also asserts that the High Court failed to consider the rationale behind NHRC's recommendation, i.e. there is no absolute liability on the State. Rather, it is limited to cases of unnatural deaths resulting from unwarranted acts/omissions by State officers (based on principles of vicarious liability and fault theory).

Counsels for petitioner (State) : Advocate General, Senior Advocate Amit Kumar; AOR Avijit Mani Tripathi; Advocates Rekha Bakshi, Aditya Shankar Pandey, Shaurya Sahay, Himanshu Sehrawat, Upendra Mishra, and PS Negi 

Case Title: The State of Meghalaya v. Killing Jana & Ors., SLP(C) Diary No.47683/2023

Click here to read/download order