File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Case Analysis: Bhim Singh v/s Jammu And Kashmir

Brief Facts Of The Case:
The petitioner a member of legislative assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was arrested and detained in police custody. He was deliberately prevented from attending the parliament sessions to be held on 11th September 1985. He was arrested under section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code was registered against him for delivering a malicious/ seditious speech at the public gathering near the parade ground in Jammu on 8th September 1985.

He was not produced before any magistrate until the 13th of September and he was produced before magistrate within a requisite time period that is 24 hours. As a consequence of this, there was also a voting session at the assembly which he apparently missed, where his vote was very crucial but the person to whom he wanted to cast the vote won but his right to vote was infringed.

Name Of The Judge: O. Chinnapa Reddy And V. Khalid - Name Of The Court: Supreme Court Of India
Date Of The Decision: 22nd November, 1985 - Citation: Air 1986 Sc 494
Plaintiff: Bhim Singh - Defendant: State Of Jammu & Kashmir

Arguments Advanced Of The Case:
Petitioner:

The learned counsel from the side of the petitioner openly denied the other parties argument that he was produced in the front of the magistrate on 11th September 1985 and in front of the sub-judge on 13th September 1985 and even to be examined by any doctor to obtain a medical certificate that was used for obtaining a remand for one day from the Sub Judge. They accept that on 14th of September 1985 his client was produced before the Sub Judge, Jammu, and remanded for 2 days of judicial custody.

They also accept that thereafter on the 16th of September, his client was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge and was granted bail. They further also argued that during police custody his client had been harassed by the detained police.

Defendant:
Inspector – General of Police. Shri M.M. Khajuria and superintendent of Police, Anantnag, Shri M.A. Mir contented that on 10th of September 1985, the police control room sent a notice to them asking the petitioner to be arrested and also after the arrest, the petitioner was brought to District Headquarters as instructed and given necessities.

Officers were only asked to pay attention to whether the petitioner had travelled safely through the Udhampur region they further added that on 11th of September 1985, the petitioner was produced before the court and the Executive Magistrate First Class signed to keep petitioner under police custody for a period of 2 days and on expiry of the remand extended it for two more days, further remand for one day from Sub -Judge on 14th September and 2 more days of judicial custody was granted by the judge.

Judgement:
After hearing the arguments from both the parties and considering the facts of the case the hon’ble Supreme court observed that the law enforcement officials acted in a very most arbitrary way and ruled “if the non-public liberty of a member of the legislature is to be played within this fashion one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals”.

Moving forward the apex court reminded the duties of “police officials who are the custodians of law and order within the state should have the best respect for private liberty of citizens and will not float the laws by stopping to such weird acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order mustn't become depredators of civil liberties.

Their duty is to safeguard and to abduct.” Chinnappa Reddy J. and Khalid J. followed the choice of Supreme Court in Rudul Shah and Sebastian Hongray cases and expressed the view that when someone involves us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous and malicious intent which his Constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and invasion might not be washed away or whisked-away by his being unfettered.

The petitioner for such gross violation of his fundamental rights granted to him by the constitution of the country was awarded monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs. within the cases of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr. and within the case of Sebastian Hongray v. UOI, it absolutely was noticed that just in case of such violation of the basic rights provided by the Constitution, it's necessary to compensate the victim by way of exemplary costs. The respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was ordered to pay to the petitioner five thousand rupees within 2 months from the date of the judgment. the number was to be deposited with the Registrar of the Court which might then be paid to the petitioner.

Case Analysis:
The wrongdoing of imprisonment is one in every of the foremost severe kinds of human rights violations. He was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the assembly session and violation of fundamental right to personal liberty. This case brings forward the varied banned detentions by the force. simply because an individual has been alleged of a wrong, it doesn't mean that the person loses all his basic rights.

Even the prisoners have human rights the proper of an individual to private liberty, freedom, associated life with dignity has been bonded by the Constitution underneath Articles twenty and 21[1] can't be abrogated even throughout an emergency, and imprisonment is inharmonious of an equivalent. the very fact that a convict is captive and needs to serve a sentence, doesn’t offer the jail authorities any right to torment or torture him unnecessarily. If the person is unlawfully confined by any lawman or government officer, then he or a person on his behalf will file for the legal document of habeas corpus. The legal document ensures the freedom of the one that is confined.

The one that is near to be incorrectly in remission or captive may use affordable force so as to stop false arrest. He will use force for self-protection however needs to certify that the force used is affordable in line with the circumstances. Also, within the renowned case of ‘ D.K.Basu v.State of state, the rules on the rights of the in remission person were noted.
Right to be made before a magistrate while not delay- The CrPC underneath Section 56 and 76(2) mandates that person arrested shall be procured before magistrate having jurisdiction without unnecessary delay.

Right of not being detained for over twenty four hours- This provides that the sensational authority is needed to supply the in remission person while not surplus delay before the justice and in no case such delay shall be over twenty four hours. However, the stipulated amount of 24 hours excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to Magistrate’s Court. If this demand isn't followed by the sensational authority then the arrest are deemed to be unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of the case is Injuria sine damno. It means violation of legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. It is actionable per se which means there is no need to prove that as a consequence of an act, the plaintiff has suffered any harm. For a successful action, the only thing that has to be proved that the plaintiff’s legal right has been violated. Here the plaintiff’s legal right were violated.

He was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the assembly session and violation of fundamental right to personal liberty. He argued that he was not produced before a magistrate within a requisite time period. It was held that this was the violation of his fundamental rights. As the plaintiff’s legal rights were infringed. Defendant was held liable and was ordered to pay RS 50,000/- as exemplary damages by supreme court.

Law Applied:
  • Section 153 A of Ranbir Penal Code:
    Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony:
    1. Whoever-
      1.  by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds or religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill- will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
         
      2. commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or in likely to disturb the public tranquility. Shall be punished with imprisonment 1[which shall not be less than four years but may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine].
         
      3. organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community.]
         
    2.  Offence committed in place of worship, etc:
      whoever commits an offence specified in sub- section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment.
       
  • CrPC Section 56:
    Person arrested to be taken before magistrate of officer in charge in police stations. A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to provisions the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the arrested person before a magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of the police station.
     
  • CrPC Section 76 (2):
    Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay. The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person: Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate' s Court.
     
  • Constitutional Right under Article 21:
    Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
     
  • Constitutional Right under Article 22:
    Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases:
    1. No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
       
    2. Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

References:
  • https://www.clawlegal.org/editorial/bhim-singh-v-state-of-jammu-and-kashmir-air-1986-sc-494/
  • Bhim Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (22.11.1985- SC) : MANU/SC/0064?1985
  • https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/ and https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
  • https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1670784/ and https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119266/
  • https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1227505/

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...

Titile

Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...

Titile

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

The Factories Act,1948

Titile

There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Law of Writs In Indian Constitution

Titile

Origin of Writ In common law, Writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrati...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly