SHAKEEL AHMAD vs. UNION OF INDIA .

REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.182 OF 2001 Shakeel Ahmed                        … Petitioner v. Union of India & Ors.                      ... Respondents J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS th 1. The city of Mumbai had a torrid time from 6  December 1992 th till 12   March 1993. Mumbai witnessed perhaps the worst mob th frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 6   December th th th 1992 to 10   December 1992 and from 6   January 1993 to 20 January 1993. There were many incidents of arson and violence Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2022.11.04 17:15:24 IST Reason: resulting in a large­scale loss of lives and damage to properties. The Police resorted to firing at many places.  Ultimately, Army was 1 called to aid the civil administration. Thereafter, the situation was gradually   brought  under   control.  When  the   citizens   of   Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were serial bomb blasts th in various parts of the city on 12  March 1993. In December 1992 and January 1993, there were about 900 deaths, 168 persons were reported missing and about 2036 persons suffered injuries. As a th result of the serial bomb blasts of 12  March 1993, there were 257 deaths and 1400 people were injured. th 2. The Government of Maharashtra by a notification dated 25 January 1993 constituted a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the 1952 Act’) headed by Hon’ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, the then sitting Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, who subsequently retired as a Judge of this Court. The Terms of Reference of the Commission were as under:  “(i) The   circumstances,   events   and   immediate causes of the incidents which occurred in the Bombay   Police   Commissionerate   area   in th December 1992 on or after the 6   December 1992 and, again in January 1993, on or after th the 6  January 1993; (ii) Whether   any   individual   or   group   of individuals or any other organizations, were 2 responsible   for   such   events   and circumstances;  (iii) The   adequacy   or   otherwise   of   the precautionary and preventive measures, taken by   the   Police   preceding   the   aforesaid incidents; (iv) Whether   the   steps   taken   by   the   Police   in controlling the riots were adequate and proper and   whether   the   Police   firing   resulting   in deaths was justified or not; and (v) The measures, long and short term, which are required to be taken by the administration to avoid recurrence of such incidents, to secure communal   harmony   and   also   to   suggest improvements in law and order machinery.” Subsequently, the Terms of Reference of the Commission 3. were   expanded   by   the   State   Government   and   the   following additional terms were incorporated:  “(vi) The circumstances and the immediate cause of the   incidents   commonly   known   as   the   serial th bomb­blasts   of   the   12   March   1993,   which occurred   in   the   Bombay   Police Commissionerate area; (vii) Whether the incidents referred to in term (i), have   any   common   link   with   the   incidents referred to in term (vi) above; and (viii)Whether the incidents referred to in term (i) and in term (vi) were part of a common design.” rd By a notification dated 23  January 1996, the State Government disbanded the Commission on a very strange ground that there was   an   inordinate   delay   on   the   part   of   the   Commission   in 3 submitting its report. As noted in the report of the Commission, the then Hon’ble Prime Minister requested the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to revive the Commission and that is how it was th revived by the notification dated 28  May 1996. The Commission th submitted its report on 16   February 1998 which consisted of two   volumes.   Volume­I   contained   the   conclusions   and recommendations   of   the   Commission.   Volume   II   contained   a summary of the evidence recorded and analysis of the evidence. 4. The present petition invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under   Article   32   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   There   are   five substantive prayers made in the petition, which read thus:  “i. Declare that an enquiry conducted under the Commission   of   Enquiry   Act,   1952,   would tantamount to an Inquiry within the meaning of Article 311 [2] of the Constitution of India; ii. Declare   that   a   public   servant   found guilty/indicted   under   the   Commission   of Enquiry Act, 1952 be liable to be summarily dismissed; and iii. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or like nature directing the Respondent­State   to   accept   and   act   on   the finding   of   the   Sri   Krishna   Commission   of Enquiry; and iv. Issue a Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus and or like nature directing the 4 Respondent­State   of   Maharashtra   that SUMMARY   cases   be   re­opened   and   action taken   in   accordance   with   the recommendations   of   the   Sri   Krishna Commission Report; v. Direct Respondents to pay compensation to the persons identified as MISSING and the cases concerning them to be closed;” The   Recommendations   of   Justice B.   N.   Srikrishna   Commission   and the   Response   of   the   State Government   The   entire   petition   revolves   around   the   issue   of 5. implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. The recommendations which are relevant for deciding this petition can be summarized as under: i. Based   on   the   study   conducted   by   a   committee   of experts of Tata Institute of Social Sciences appointed by the Commission which dealt with the immediate causes of the riots, the Commission opined that the causes   were   political,   socio­economic   and demographic; ii. The precautionary and preventive measures taken by the   Police   preceding   the   incidents   of   riots   were inadequate. The intelligence machinery of the Police did not give information in good time about the possible 5 damage to the Babri Maszid. Moreover, there was no effort   made   to   make   an   accurate   assessment   of   the situation, which could arise due to possible damage to the Babri Maszid. The Intelligence Department failed to gather   crucial   information   about   the   closed   door meetings   held   by   the   two   different   religious   groups, which were found responsible for the riots; iii. The Police machinery proved to be inadequate to deal with   the   situation.   Moreover,   the   Police   were hopelessly outnumbered as the strength of the Police staff   was   inadequate   even   to   handle   day­to­day problems; iv. The   Commission   found   that   there   was   a   failure   to register crimes by the Police.   There was a delay in registering crimes.   The investigation was carried out in an arbitrary and casual manner; v. There was a delay in the disposal of criminal cases concerning riot­related offences; vi. There   was   a   lot   of   political   interference   in   the functioning of the Police machinery;  6 vii. The   commission   concluded   that   the   Police   officials named in paragraph 1.30  of Volume­I of  its report, were found actively participating in riots, communal incidents   and   incidents   of   looting,   arson,   etc.   The Commission recommended the initiation of disciplinary action against the said Police officials; viii. The Commission noted that the members of the police force were lacking physical fitness. The Commission recorded that long and arduous working hours leave them no time for physical exercises. The Commission recommended that strict standards of physical fitness be enforced; and ix. The   Commission   recommended   improvement   of conditions of work of the Police and also recommended that proper housing facilities be provided to the police.  6. The State Government issued a Memorandum of action to be taken by the Government on the report of the Commission (for short, ‘the Memorandum’).   Most of the recommendations were accepted by the State Government. The action proposed by the State Government was incorporated in the Memorandum. The 7 response   of   the   State   Government   to   some   of   the   relevant recommendations reads thus: i. The   State   Government   noted   that   the   Police   have classified a large number of offences relating to riots in ‘A’ Summary (true but undetected). The Government decided   to   appoint   a   committee   comprising   Officers from Home Department, Law Department and senior Police Officers to scrutinize all ‘A’ Summary cases and carry out reinvestigation, wherever warranted; ii. Instructions would be issued to the Police Department to   ensure   effective   and   speedy   trials   in   offences relating to riots; iii.       The   State   Government   has   decided   to   pay compensation to the victims of the riots and violence; iv. The   State   Government   has   decided   to   initiate disciplinary   proceedings   against   the   erring   police officials; and  v. The   State   Government   assured   to   improve   the conditions in which the police force was working. 8              The State Government did not agree with some of the conclusions drawn by the Commission especially its findings on the causes of the riots/violence. But, the Government agreed to act upon majority of recommendations. 7. There are affidavits filed by both sides. The affidavits filed on the side of the petitioner make a grievance about the failure of the State Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission and also the failure to bring the offenders to book. Rival Submissions 8. Shri   Colin   Gonsalves,   the   learned   senior   counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that as can be seen from the   affidavits   on   record,   the   action   taken   by   the   State Government   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Commission   is merely an eyewash. He pointed out that the Police Officials who were found guilty of serious misconduct by the Commission were let off either by exonerating them or  by  imposing  very  minor penalties. He pointed out that almost all the prosecutions ended either in discharge of the accused or in acquittal. He made a grievance that the Legal Services Authorities constituted at the State and the District levels, failed to render assistance to the 9 victims of the offence and/or to the legal heirs of the victims of the   offence,   as   the   case   may   be.   Legal   assistance   was   not provided to the victims or legal heirs of the victims for challenging the orders of discharge or acquittal and for filing proceedings for recovery of compensation. As a result, the victims got no relief from the State machinery and even from the judiciary. He also submitted that meagre compensation of Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the legal heirs of those who lost lives in the riots. Moreover, there was inordinate delay in making the payment of compensation. Very few families of missing persons were paid compensation, though, by legal fiction, the persons missing for more than seven years are treated as dead. He would, therefore, submit that the compensation   deserves   to   be   enhanced   substantially   and   a direction   be   issued   to   the   State   Government   to   ensure   that compensation is paid to every eligible victim/ his or her heirs. He submitted that victims be provided interest to compensate them for the delayed payment.  9. Shri Rahul Chitnis, the learned counsel representing the State Government urged that there is no default on the part of the State Government. He submitted that all efforts were made to trace the family members of missing persons and compensation 10 was   promptly   paid   to   them.   He   submitted   that   disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Police Officers named by the Commission and were taken to the logical end. He submitted that it is too late in the day now for this Court to interfere and issue directions to challenge the orders of acquittal or discharge. He   submitted   that   some   such   orders   were   unsuccessfully challenged before the higher forum. His submission is that with the passage of time, no directions are warranted in this petition. Consideration of Submissions 10. We   have   given   careful  consideration   to   the   submissions. During the course of the submissions, the first two prayers were not   seriously   pressed   by   the   learned   senior   counsel   for   the petitioner.   The   recommendations   of   a   Commission   appointed under the 1952 Act cannot bind the Government.   The Courts cannot compel the Government to act upon the report.  But, once the Government accepts the recommendations, a Writ Court can issue   a   mandamus   for   the   implementation   of   the recommendations as it becomes an obligation of the Government to implement the recommendations. A perusal of the affidavits filed in this petition as well as connected petitions which were th disposed of by the order dated 30   August 2022, shows that 11 while the State Government disputed most of the conclusions drawn by the Commission regarding the causes of the riots, most of   the   recommendations   regarding   taking   corrective   measures were accepted as can be seen from the Memorandum filed by the State   Government.   We   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   the recommendations of the Commission were submitted more than 24 years back and most of the trials and disciplinary inquiries have been concluded more than 20 years back. Nevertheless, we are dealing with submissions canvassed across the Bar. Action Against Erring Police Officials 11. Firstly,   we   will   deal   with   the   conduct   of   disciplinary proceedings against the erring police officials as recommended by the Commission. The details thereof are found in the Affidavit th dated  13   March  2020   of   Shri  Amitabh   Gupta,   the   Principal Secretary,   Home   Department,   Government   of   Maharashtra.   In terms  of   the   recommendations   of   the   Commission,   FIRs   were registered   against   nine   police   officials.   Two   of   them   were discharged and seven were acquitted. The complainants/victims th filed revision applications against orders of discharge dated 16 April   2003   of   two   officials.   The   revision   applications   were dismissed.   The   matters   were   carried   to   this   Court   by   way   of 12 th Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed on 4  July 2011. In the case of six police officials, orders of acquittal were passed th on 18   November 2005, and one officer was  acquitted by an th order dated 9   September 2014. These orders of acquittal were not challenged. Out of nine police officials, seven have already been superannuated. The State Government has not stated the reasons for not questioning the orders of acquittal. The State should have been vigilant and proactive in these cases.  Now it is too late in the day to direct the State to examine whether the orders of acquittal deserve to be challenged.  12. Now,   coming   to   the   disciplinary   inquiry   initiated   against various police officials, we find that one official was dismissed from service. One official was made to compulsorily retire by way of punishment. On nine other police officials, minor penalties have been imposed. Out of the said nine police officials, against whom minor penalties were imposed, eight officials have already retired from service. Eight other police officials were exonerated. Out of them, five officials have since retired. Inquiry against one police official was dropped as he died during the pendency of the inquiry. In view of long passage of time, as far as the disciplinary action is concerned, now in the year 2022, it will be inappropriate 13 to go into the question of the validity of the orders passed by the disciplinary   authorities   and   the   adequacy   of   the   penalties imposed. In any case, in a writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, a Writ Court should not normally interfere with disciplinary proceedings. Riot Related Criminal Cases 13. The  affidavit discloses  the details  of the  fate of  253  riot related   criminal   cases.   The   outcome   of   these   cases   can   be summarized as under:

It is noted in the affidavit that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay had nominated two learned Sessions Judges and two learned   Metropolitan   Magistrates   as   the   Special   Courts   for dealing with criminal cases relating to the violence in December 1992 and January 1993. The affidavit discloses that one case is still pending in the Sessions Court. We propose to direct the 14 Sessions Court to dispose of the pending case at the earliest. Ninety­seven cases are on dormant files. The reason must be that either the accused therein are not traceable or are absconding. The   High   Court,   on   the   administrative   side,   must   issue appropriate directions to the concerned Courts in which these cases   are   pending.   The   High   Court   must   ensure   that   the concerned Courts take appropriate steps for tracing the accused. The State Government will have to set up a special cell for tracing the accused.  Failure To Provide Legal Aid To The Victims Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel made a 14. grievance that the victims of the offences ought to have been provided legal aid by the State and the District Legal Services Authorities established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987   (for   short,   ‘the   1987   Act’)   for   challenging   the   orders   of acquittal. His grievance was that the Legal Services Authorities have not performed their duty.   Though no directions can be issued   at   this   stage   to   grant   legal   aid,   nevertheless,   we   are examining the legal contentions. 15. Section 12 of the 1987 Act lays down the criteria for giving legal services which reads thus:  15 “12. Criteria for giving legal services   —  Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is—  (a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;  (b)   a   victim   of   trafficking   in   human   beings   or begar   as   referred   to   in   article   23   of   the Constitution;  (c) a woman or a child;  (d) a person with disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,   Protection   of   Rights   and   Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996); (e)   a   person   under   circumstances   of underserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic, violence, caste atrocity, flood,   drought,   earthquake   or   industrial disaster;  or  (f) an industrial workman; or  (g) in custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986), or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987); or (h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case  is before  a  court  other  than the  Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or 16 such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.” (emphasis added) 16. Under Clause (e) of Section 12 of the 1987 Act, a person who is subjected to ethnic violence, is entitled to legal services under   the   1987   Act.   The   meaning   of   the   adjective   “ethnic”

large   groups   of   people   classed   according   to   common   racial, national,   tribal,   religious,   linguistic,   or   cultural   origin   or

including solely “linguistic” or “racial” groups.   If it is given a broad meaning, it will include religion, tribe and caste in group . distinction   Looking   at   the   conclusions   in   the   report   of   the Commission and the response to the recommendations of the State Government in the form of the Memorandum, there is no manner   of   doubt   that   communal   disharmony   between   two religious groups was one of the main causes of the riots and violence. There are enough indications in both documents that there was tension between the two religious groups which is one of the major causes of the incidents of violence. Considering the object of the 1987 Act, a broad meaning will have to be assigned 17 to   the   word   “ethnic”   for   the   purposes   of   considering   the entitlement to grant of legal aid. Therefore, these incidents of December 1992 and January 1993 are the incidents of ethnic violence within the meaning of clause (e) of Sub­section (1) of Section 12 of the 1987 Act. Hence, on an application being made by the victims of the offence or their legal heirs, legal services could have been provided to them by appointing advocates, who could have assisted the Criminal Courts in terms of sub­Section (2) of Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) during the course of trials. Legal services could have  been   provided   to   the   victims   to   challenge   the   orders   of acquittal. But we must remember that those were the early days of the Legal Services Authorities. With the passage of time, the Legal Services Authorities right from the Taluka level to national level, have expanded their activities for effectively rendering legal services. Now multiple activities are being conducted by the Legal Services Authorities at various levels. The scope of legal services has   been   considerably   widened   during   the   last   few   decades. During the pandemic of COVID 19, these authorities reached the poor and needy by providing assistance to them. We hope and trust that after 75 years of independence, riot­like situations will 18 never arise. Unfortunately, if such situations arise, we are sure that the Legal Services Authorities at various levels will come to the rescue of the victims of violence and render legal services to them, keeping in mind the spirit of Section 12 of the 1987 Act. Now,   it   is   too   late   in   the   day   to   direct   the   Legal   Services Authorities to render legal aid to the victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots for challenging the orders of acquittal.  Failure To Make Proper Investigation  17. One of the grievances of the petitioner was that in large number of riots related offences, a proper investigation was not carried   out   and   therefore,   about   1371   cases   were   closed   by classifying as ‘A’ Summary (true but undetected). The affidavit of Shri   Amitabh   Gupta   notes   that   the   State   Government   had appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of the Director General of Police to scrutinize all cases which were classified as ‘A’   Summary.   In   terms   of   the   directions   of   the   Committee, reinvestigation   was   carried   out   in   112   cases   under   the supervision of the Officers of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. Out of the 112 cases, 104 were again classified as ‘A’ Summary. In the remaining eight cases, charge sheets were filed. Out of the eight cases, seven cases resulted in acquittal, and in 19 one case, where the offence was compoundable, the case was compounded. Recommendation on Police Reforms 18. The Commission in its report has made several suggestions for reinforcing and improving Police Force. The recommendations are   very   wide   and   cover   many   aspects.   The   Commission recommended that professionalism needs to be introduced in the Police Force. The Commission has laid emphasis on the training and physical fitness of  the  members of  the Police  Force. The Commission suggested improvements in the weaponry held by the   Police   Force.   The   Commission   also   suggested   vast improvements in the communication systems of the Police. There is also a recommendation made to stop political interference in the day­to­day functioning of the police. We may note here that with   the   passage   of   time   and   with   the   advancement   of technology, there has been a considerable improvement in the communication systems used by the Police. The Commission’s suggestion   of   setting   up   Rapid   Action   Squads   has   been implemented.   The   Commission   suggested   that   various   steps should be taken to boost the morale of the Police Force, such as providing   proper   housing   facilities   to   them,   reducing   political 20 interference in the day­to­day functioning of the Police Force, etc. The Memorandum of the Government records that most of these recommendations have been accepted by the State Government. But   what   remains   is   the   implementation   part.   The   State Government cannot ignore the recommendations made by the Commission for the improvement and modernization of the Police Force and the recommendations shall continue to guide the State Government.  Compensation to Victims That   takes   us   to   the   crucial   issue   of   payment   of 19. compensation to the victims of the riots. We have already noted that whether due to the violence or police firing, 900 people lost their lives and 2036 people got injured in December 1992 and January 1993.  20. Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers a right on every citizen to live with human dignity. Article 21 encompasses into itself the right to live a meaningful and dignified life. All the aspects of life which make a person live with human dignity, are covered by the word ‘life’ used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.   If   the   citizens   are   forced   to   live   in   an   atmosphere   of 21 communal  tension,   it  affects   their   right  to  life   guaranteed   by Article 21. The violence witnessed by Mumbai in December 1992 and January 1993 adversely affected the right of the residents of the affected areas to lead dignified and meaningful life. It cannot be disputed that certain groups were responsible for the large­ scale violence in December 1992 and January 1993. There was a failure on the part of the State Government to maintain law and order and to protect the rights of the people guaranteed under Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   As   noted   earlier,   900 persons died and  more  than 2000 persons  were  injured.  The houses, places of business and properties of the citizens were destroyed.   These   are   all   violations   of   their   rights   guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One of the root causes of their suffering was the failure of the State Government to maintain law and order. Therefore, the affected persons had a right to seek compensation from the State Government. Though th belatedly, by a Government Resolution dated 8  July 1993 (the first   Government   Resolution),   a   decision   was   taken   to   give financial   assistance   to   the   persons   affected   due   to   riots   in December 1992 and January 1993 as well as due to the serial bomb blasts in the city of Mumbai. Nearly five and a half years 22 nd after the incidents of riots, the Government Resolution dated 22 July   1998   (the   second   Government   Resolution)   was   issued, providing for giving compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs to the legal heirs of the missing persons. The eligibility criteria and procedure for disbursement   were   laid   down   in   the   second   Government Resolution. th The affidavit of Shri Amitabh Gupta dated 13  March 2020 21. notes that 900 persons died in the riots and 168 persons were reported missing.  He claimed that compensation has been paid to the legal heirs of all 900 dead persons and family members of th 60 missing persons. A direction was issued by this Court on 30 August   2022,   directing   the   State   Government   to   disclose   the details of the compensation paid to the victims. It is necessary to th quote the aforesaid order dated 30  August 2022 of this Court, which reads thus: “….We have heard learned counsel for parties.  In  order   to   deal  with  all  the   aspects  raised   by learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   more specifically the aspect of compensation, we require a better explanation of exhibit­B at page 26 of the affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra dated 13.3.2020.   We   would   require   information   as under:­  23 (i)   Whether   the   figure   of   168   persons   who   are stated   to   be   missing   form   a   part   of   the   900 number of victims identified;  (ii)Whether   any   compensation   has   been   paid   to the   legal   heirs   of   the   persons   who   have   been found missing;  (iii)   What   is   the   reference   to   the   compensation paid to heirs of victims;  (iv) Whether any compensation has been paid for loss of property;  (v) When was these compensations paid i.e. the time lag between the date of the incident and the compensation being made.  An affidavit be filed in terms aforesaid within two weeks.  Arguments concluded.  Judgment reserved.” (emphasis added) The   State   Government   by   the   affidavit   of   Shri   Mangesh Manjabhau   Shinde,   Joint   Secretary   of   the   Home   Department purported to comply with the above directions. The response of the   State   Government   in   the   affidavit   of   Shri   Mangesh Manjabhau Shinde reads thus: “(i)  Whether  the figure  of 168 persons who  are stated   to   be   missing   form   a   part   of   the   900 number of victims identified. 24 Reply – The total number of missing persons is 168 which is not the part of total 900 victims. (ii) Whether any compensation has been paid to the   legal   heirs   of   the   persons   who   have   been found missing; Reply­ The total compensation Rs.1,19,00,000/­ paid   to   the   legal   heirs   of   the   60   missing persons. The compensation to the legal heirs of the remaining missing persons has not yet been given for the reasons that the legal heirs were not found, residential addresses were not found, undertaking not submitted by the legal heirs,   police   case   is   registered   against   the missing person, etc. (iii)   What   is   the   reference   to   the   compensation paid to heirs of victims;  Reply – The compensation to legal heirs of victims and the compensation for the loss of property is given   with   reference   to   the   Government Resolution, dated 08.07.1993. A true copy of the Government   Resolution   dated   08.07.1993   is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure­R­2. The   compensation   paid   to   the   legal   heirs   of missing   persons   is   given   with   reference   to   the Government Resolution, dated 22.07.1998. A true copy   of   the   Government   Resolution   dated 22.07.1998 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure­R­3.  (iv) Whether any compensation has been paid for loss of property; Reply – Compensation for Rs.3,31,92,658/­ has been paid for loss of property. The bifurcation is as below :­ 25

(v) When was these compensations paid i.e. the time lag between the date of the incident and the compensation being made. Reply – After the guidelines issued by GR dated 08/07/1993   and   GR   dated   22/07/1998,   the compensation   was   paid   for   over   the   period from   year   1992   to   2010   after   thorough scrutiny of the cases of compensation as per the GR norms, from time to time. ” (emphasis added) 22. Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a presumption that if a person has not been heard of for seven years or more by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, such a person is presumed to be dead unless the contrary is proved by the person who affirms it. It is in view of the statutory presumption that the State Government has come out with the scheme to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the 26 legal heirs/family members of the missing persons. Now, coming to the missing persons, the family members of only 60 missing persons   have   been   paid   compensation.   As   regards   the   family members of remaining 108 missing persons, compensation was not paid for various reasons, such as, the persons concerned were   not   found,   their   residential   addresses   were   not   found, undertakings   were   not   submitted   by   them   etc.   The   State Government has not set out the efforts made to trace the family members of the missing persons and to make sure that they make compliance, such as the execution of the undertakings. We propose   to   constitute   a   Committee   headed   by   the   Member Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (for short, ‘MSLSA’), to look into the records relating to the remaining 108 missing persons. We propose to direct the State Government to nominate a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collector and a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner   of   Police   as   the   other   two   members   of   the Committee. The Committee shall monitor the efforts made by the State   Government   to   trace   the   family   members   of   missing persons, whose addresses are not available and also to ensure that   those   eligible   persons   who   have   not   made   procedural 27 compliances   are   assisted   to   make   necessary   compliance.   The Committee   will   have   to   also   monitor   compliance   with   the directions   issued   by   this   Court   as   regards   payment   of compensation to all categories of victims.   23. In the affidavit of the State Government, a stand has been taken   that   compensation   has   been   paid   to   those   whose houses/stalls/huts   were   damaged   or   destroyed.   Reliance   is placed   on   the   first   Government   Resolution.   The   Resolution provided for giving following assistance:  “Financial  relief   to   the   victims   of   bomb   blasts   in th Mumbai city and Mumbai suburbs on and after 12 March 1993. 1. Distress relief: ­ Every destitute person Rs. 250/­. 2. Grant for reconstruction of hut: ­ For each house of destroyed hut: According to the extent of damage caused to the hut Rs.5000/­ whichever is less, grant should be given. 3.   Renovation   of   houses:   ­   For   renovation   of residential house, along with subsidy of Rs.5,000/­ and loan of Rs.10,000/­, a maximum of Rs.15,000/­ financial support. 4. Repair of Houses: ­ for the sake of house repairs, Rs.6000/­ and Loan of Rs.5000/­, it means, grant of up to Rs.11000/­ maximum. 5. For destroyed stall and shops: ­ for Destroyed stalls, amount should be given as subsidy equal to the cost of damage or a maximum of Rs.5000/­. 28 6. Assistance for ‘burnt carts’: ­ to the hand cart owners,   whose   carts   have   been   destroyed   by   fire should be given a subsidy of Rs.2500/­ each. 7.   Compensation   Amount   of   Rs.2   lakhs   grant   to relatives of deceased persons: 8.   A   grant   of   Rs.25,000/­   to   a   person   with permanent disability. 9. To give subsidy of Rs.10,000/­to a person with temporary physical disability. 10. Assistance of Rs.5000/­ for admitted more than 24 hours in any private Hospital. 11.   Medical   aid   for   less   than   24   hours hospitalization   will   be   Rs.1000/­   or   the   exact expresses   of   the   hospital   which   will   less,   will   be given as assistance. 12.   Rs.25,000/­   financial   assistance   to   the   Taxi owners whose vehicle is totally burnt. 13. To the surviving Rickshaw owners, Rs.13,000/­ whose rickshaw is totally burnt.” 24. In the earlier affidavit of compliance of Shri Amitabh Gupta, the State Government has not taken a stand that compensation in terms of the first Government Resolution was paid to all the victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots who were eligible to receive the same. The State Government was under an obligation to pay compensation to the eligible victims within a reasonable period which can be taken as period of six months from the dates of the respective Government Resolutions.   Therefore, the Committee 29 will   have   to   peruse   the   records   to   ascertain   whether compensation was paid to all eligible persons. The Committee shall   ensure   that   compensation   is   paid   in   terms   of   the   first Government Resolution to various categories of victims of the 1992 and 1993 riots. After examining records, if it is revealed that some of the victims have not been paid compensation, the Committee   formed   as   above,   will   have   to   ensure   that compensation   is   paid   to   the   victims   in   terms   of   the   first Government Resolution by the State Government. The interest will have to be paid to such victims who have not been paid compensation at the rate of 9% from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the first Government Resolution till the date of payment of the compensation amount. Even as regards the payment of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs 25. to the legal heirs of 108 missing persons, the State Government will have to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the expiry of the period of   six  months  from   22nd  July   1998   when  the   second Government Resolution was issued. th 26. Though as per the order dated 30  August 2022, the State Government   was   expected   to   give   details   about   the   time   lag 30 between the date of the incident and the date of payment of compensation, the State Government has avoided to furnish the material particulars and only a vague statement has been made that compensation was paid in terms of both the Government Resolutions between 1992 and 2010.  This statement shows that there   was   considerable   delay   in   disbursing   the   compensation amount.     The   State   Government   will   have   to   provide   all   the details expected to be furnished in terms of the order dated 30th August 2022 to the Committee. The Committee will find out the cases where there has been a delay of more than six months in making payment of compensation in terms of the first or the second Government Resolutions, as the case may be. Interest at the rate of 9% from the date of expiry of the period of six months from the dates of the relevant applicable Government Resolution till the date of actual payment will have to be paid by the State Government.   The Committee will have to decide the issue of entitlement to interest in terms of these directions.   We cannot allow the victims to suffer only because there was a delay in the disposal of this writ petition. The Committee can always take the help of the Para Legal Volunteers to reach the persons who have 31 been deprived of compensation and to render assistance to them to comply with the formalities.  27. Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel made a fervent plea for enhancing the quantum of compensation on the ground   that   the   same   was   inadequate.   The   quantum   of compensation has been fixed way back in the years 1993 in the context of the then prevailing situation. There is no prayer made for enhancement of compensation in this writ petition of the year 2001.   Therefore, it may not be appropriate to accede to the prayer for grant enhancement after such a long passage of time. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following 28. order. There   shall   be   a   Committee   headed   by   the   Member i. Secretary of MSLSA to monitor the implementation of the   directions   issued   by   this   Judgment.   The   State Government shall appoint a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collector, and a Police Officer, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, who shall be the other two members of the Committee; 32 ii. The State Government shall submit to the Committee a report   containing   details   of   168   missing   persons including   their   names   and   addresses.   The   State Government  will  also   place   material  regarding   efforts made to trace family members of 108 missing persons who have been deprived of compensation in terms of the second Government Resolution. The State Government shall   make   all   possible   efforts   to   trace   the   legal heirs/family   members   of   the   missing   persons.   The Committee shall monitor this exercise. The Committee shall   assist   the   legal   representatives   of   the   missing persons to complete the procedural formalities; The   State   Government   shall   also   submit   to   the iii. Committee the record relating to compensation paid in terms   of   the   Annexure   to   the   First   Government Resolution   as   well   as   in   terms   of   the   second Government   Resolution   by   incorporating   the   specific dates on which the compensation was actually paid to the persons entitled to it. The State Government shall also provide a list of victims who have not been paid 33 compensation   in   terms   of   both   the   Government Resolutions; iv. The State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the legal heirs of the missing persons traced out hereafter, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum nd  from 22 January 1999 i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the second Government Resolution, till actual payment; The Committee consisting of the Secretary of MSLSA v. and the other two Government Officers appointed under this   order,   shall   monitor   the   efforts   of   the   State Government to trace other victims who were entitled to compensation   in   terms   of   the   Annexure   to   the   first Government Resolution but compensation was not paid to them. The victims identified hereafter shall also be paid the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% th per annum from 8  January 1994 i.e. from the expiry of the   period   of   six   months   from   the   date   of   the   First Government Resolution, till actual payment; 34 vi. To those who were paid compensation after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the applicable Government Resolution, the State Government shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of the compensation payable from the expiry of the period of   six   months   from   the   date   of   the   applicable Government Resolution till the date of payment. This direction   will   apply   to   those   who   have   received compensation before the date of this Judgment.   The Committee, after examining the record, shall furnish to the State Government the details of the victims who are entitled to receive interest as above; The   State   Government   shall   comply   with   the vii. requirement   of   submitting   necessary   details   as aforesaid   to   the   Committee   within   a   period   of   two months from today. Appointment of the two officers, as directed above, shall be made within a period of one month from today. Both the Government Officers shall coordinate   with   concerned   Departments   and   ensure that necessary details, as directed by the Committee, 35 are furnished to the Committee within the specified time of two months; viii. The entire exercise of payment of compensation and/or interest shall be completed by the State Government within a period of nine months from today. The State Government shall report compliance made from time to time   to   the   Committee.   A   detailed   report   containing details of the compliance of the directions as aforesaid shall be filed by the Secretary of MSLSA with this Court within a period of ten months from today; The Committee shall seek necessary guidance from the ix. Executive Chairperson of MSLSA for implementation of the directions issued by this order. The Committee shall be   entitled   to   seek   the   assistance   of   Para   Legal volunteers;  x. The State Government shall provide details of the only pending riot related criminal case before the Sessions Court   at   Mumbai   to   the   Registrar   General   of   the Bombay High Court who shall bring it to the notice of 36 the concerned Court that the case needs to be disposed of at the earliest;  xi. The State Government shall provide details of 97 cases on dormant files to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court within one month from today. On receipt of the details, the High Court on the Administrative side shall issue necessary communication to the concerned Courts in which the cases are pending to take necessary steps to trace the accused. The State Government shall immediately   constitute   a   Special   Cell   to   trace   the absconding   /missing   accused   in   these   cases   and   to assist   the   concerned   Courts   so   that   the   Trial   can proceed against them; and  xii. The State Government shall expeditiously implement all the recommendations made by the Commission on the issue of reforms in the police force which were accepted by it.  37 29. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Member Secretary of MSLSA.  …....…………………J.     (Sanjay Kishan Kaul) …….…………………J.     (Abhay S. Oka) …….…………………J.      (Vikram Nath) New Delhi; November 4, 2022.  38