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:
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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
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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.]
- 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:
- 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
- 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.
- Bhim Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (22.11.1985- SC) :
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/ and https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1670784/ and https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119266/