On The Death Of Gurmeet Singh His Legal Heirs Mrs. Inder Pal Kaur vs The State Of Assam And 13 Ors

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010007602014

2026:GAU-AS:7073
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1665/2014
ON THE DEATH OF GURMEET SINGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS MRS. INDER PAL
KAUR
W/O LT. GURMEET SINGH, R/O BHORE CAMP UNDER SATWARI P.S. IN THE
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 13 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
MINISTRY OF HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS, DISPUR,-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
MINISTRY OF HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS
DISPUR-6.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE
ASSAM
B.K. KAKATI ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
ASSAM.
5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Page No.# 2/14
A
B.K. KAKATI ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
ASSAM.
6:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE SSP ANANDA RAM BARUAH ROAD
PAN BAZAAR
GUWAHATI- 781001
ASSAM.
7:SRI AMITAVA SINHA
ADDITIONAL S.P. CRIME CITY
RESERVE POLICE QUARTER
UNDER PALTAN BAZAR P.S. IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP
ASSAM
GUWAHATI.
8:SRI MADHAB CHANDRA DEKA
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL JAIL
GUWAHATI.
9:SRI LOKNATH DEKA
INSPECTOR
INVESTIGATION OFFICER
BASISTHA POLICE STATION
GUWAHATI.
10:THE GAUHATI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-28.
11:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI-1.
12:THE REGISTRAR
JUDICIAL
GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI-1.
13:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

Page No.# 3/14
GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI-1.
14:THE ASSAM HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE STATE
COMMISSION

B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Ms. N Choudhury

Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mrs. M Hazarika
Senior Advocate
Ms. D Das

Ms. S Sarma
Standing Counsel, Health &
Family Welfare Department,
Govt. of Assam
Mr. HK Das, Senior Standing Counsel,
Gauhati High Court
Mr. NK Sarma
Mr. D Nath,
Senior Govt. Advocate

Date on which Judgment is reserved: N/A

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 21.05.2026

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA
Operative Part of the Judgment

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes
Pronounced

Page No.# 4/14
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Ms. N Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, the learned Senior Govt.
Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2,
4, 5 and 6; Ms. S Sharma, the learned counsel who appears on behalf
of the respondent Nos.3 and 10; Mrs. M Hazarika, the learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Ms. D Das, the learned counsel who appears on
behalf of the respondent No.7 and Mr. HK Das, the learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. NK Sarma, who appears on behalf of the
respondent Nos.11, 12 and 13.

2. The present writ petition was filed by one Gurmeet Singh, (since
deceased), seeking the following reliefs which are reproduced
hereinunder:
(i). Set aside and quash the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the Assam Human
Right Commission Case No. 828/9/13-14.
(ii). Set aside and quash the impugned Communication No. H.C.III-36/2013/4925/G
dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Registrar (Judicial) Gauhati High Court. And/or as to
why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued to.
(iii). Directing the Respondent No.1 and more particularly the Respondent Nos.7 and 9
to pay exemplary and adequate compensation to the petitioner for the Custodial
Violence meted out on him.
(iv). Directing the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 to initiate immediate Departmental
enquiry and criminal proceeding against the Respondents No.7 and 9 for preparing and
submitting false reports of the Petitioner before the Court below.

Page No.# 5/14
(v). Directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate immediate Departmental enquiry
against the Respondents Nos.7 and 9 for the custodial violence meted out on the
petitioner while he was in police custody.
(vi). Direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 10 to initiate Departmental and criminal
proceedings against the concerned doctors for preparing and submitting false reports of
the Petitioner before the Court.
(vii). Initiate Contempt Proceedings against the Respondents Nos. 7 and 9 for violation
of the principles laid down in D.K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and Others (1997) 1
SCC 416.
(viii). Direct the Respondents No. 11,12 and 13 to provide the information sought for by
the Petitioner through his application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(ix). Impose the Penalties as laid down in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 on the Respondent Nos.11 and 13 for non-furnishing the information sought for by
the Petitioner in his Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(x). Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 , 7 and 9 to pay the cost and expenses of this entire
instant litigation.
3. The aforementioned reliefs were sought for by Late Gurmeet
Singh by filing the writ petition on the basis that the private
respondents herein upon the remand being granted administered third
degree torture upon him when he was in police custody, which was in
violation to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 416 .

4. It is further relevant to take note that on account of the torture
meted out to Late Gurmeet Singh while he was in police custody, a

Page No.# 6/14
separate criminal proceedings was initiated against respondent No.7
under Sections 326/331/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said
criminal proceeding was registered and numbered as CR Case No.
C
3451 /2013. While the said proceedings were ongoing, Late Gurmeet
Singh filed the present writ petition seeking various reliefs as
aforenoted.

5. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the Court of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati,
convicted respondent No. 7 vide the judgment dated 21.06.2018 and
sentenced the respondent No.7 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

6. An appeal against the judgment dated 21.06.2018 was filed by
respondent No.7 before this Court, which has been registered and
numbered as Criminal Appeal No.198/2018. The said appeal has been
admitted vide the order dated 02.07.2018 and is presently pending.

7. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the present writ petition,
the original petitioner, Gurmeet Singh expired on 20.11.2018.

8. The records reveal that on an application filed in the year 2022 by
the wife of Late Gurmeet Singh who is the present petitioner was

Page No.# 7/14
registered and numbered as I.A.(C)No.508/2022. The learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court substituted the present petitioner.

9. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it pertinent to take note
of a relevant fact that the present petitioner had filed two applications
one before the Police Accountability Commission and the other before
the Assam Human Rights Commission complaining about the torture
meted out to her husband and for taking appropriate action against
the concerned Police Officers.

10. The records reveal that the Police Accountability Commission did
not take any steps on the complaint filed by the present petitioner
and the Assam Human Rights Commission had dropped the said
proceedings on the ground that a criminal proceedings was pending
before the competent Court of Criminal jurisdiction.

11. In the background of the above, this Court takes note of an
additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 7 before this Court, raising
a question on the maintainability of the writ petition on the principles
of Actio personalis moritur cum persona meaning thereby, a cause of
action which is personal to a person dies with his death.

12. It is the case of respondent No. 7 that the reliefs which have been
sought for in the instant proceedings cannot be granted upon the

Page No.# 8/14
death of Late Gurmeet Singh, inasmuch as, the reliefs so sought were
personal to Late Gurmeet Singh and are not saved by any statutory
enactment.

13. A reply thereagainst was filed by the present writ petitioner
stating inter alia that it is not a personal wrong which was caused to
Late Gurmeet Singh during his lifetime. Rather, it was a constitutional
infraction thereby violating the mandate of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of D.K. Basu (Supra).

14. It is also contended by the present petitioner that as the wrong
which was committed upon Late Gurmeet Singh was a public wrong,
the same cannot come to an end with the death of Late Gurmeet
Singh.

15. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the parties and has duly taken note of the reliefs which have been
sought for by the original writ petitioner in the instant proceedings.

16. It is pertinent to take note of that the incident complained of was
sometime in the year 2013, and thereupon the present writ petition
was filed in the year 2014. The materials on record do not show, or
for that matter, the present petitioner has not placed any materials

Page No.# 9/14
which would show that on account of the alleged torture committed
by the private respondents, it led to the death of Late Gurmeet Singh.

17. The alleged torture which was meted out upon Late Gurmeet
Singh was personal to him, which, though had violated the
fundamental rights of Late Gurmeet Singh under Article 21 of the
Constitution, however, it is the opinion of this Court that in the
present circumstances, the principle of Actio personalis moritur cum
persona would apply.

18. The death of Late Gurmeet Singh cannot be traced to the alleged
incident of torture. Under such circumstances, the exceptions culled
out by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Legal Representatives Suits
Act, 1855, as well as the Indian Succession Act, 1925 etc., cannot be
applied for permitting the wife of the deceased (the present
petitioner) to continue with the present proceedings.

19. This Court finds it profitable at this stage to refer to a recent
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumud Lall
Vs. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) through LRs & Ors., reported in
2026 INSC 443, wherein the Supreme Court culled out the
principles as to when a right to sue survives. Paragraphs 59, 60, 61,
62, 63, and 64 of the said judgment in Kumud Lall (supra), being
relevant, are reproduced hereinunder:

Page No.# 10/14
59. From the above, it is clear that the exceptions provided under Section 306 of
1925 Act have to be limited to those espousing personal cause which do not continue
once the plaintiff dies, such as personal claims arising ex delicto like defamation,
personal injury etc., however, any claim on pecuniary interest of the deceased estate
continues. In order to explain the classification of 50 rights, jurisprudentially, Salmond
classified proprietary rights and personal rights as under-
“ Proprietary and personal rights. Another important distinction is that
between proprietary and personal rights. The aggregate of a man’s proprietary
rights constitutes his estate, his assets, or his property in one of the many senses
of that most equivocal or legal term. The sum total of a man’s personal rights, on
the other hand, constitutes his status or personal condition, as opposed to his
estate. If he owns land, or chattels, or patent rights, or the goodwill of a business,
or shares in a company, of if debts are owing to him, all these are rights pertain to
his estate. But if he is a free man and a citizen, a husband and a father, the rights
which he has as such pertain to his status or standing in the law.”

60. This Court in Vinayak Purshottam Dube Vs. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat , while
deciding the liability of legal heirs of the deceased opposite party-developer to provide
completion certificate, conveyance deed etc., to the complainant in addition to the
monetary payment arising out of a development agreement, made the following
classification between proprietary and personal rights –

Proprietary Rights Personal Rights

1. Proprietary rights mean a
Personal rights are rights
person's right in relation to
arising out of any contractual
his own property. Proprietary
obligation or rights that relate
rights have some economic
to status.
or monetary value.
2. Proprietary rights are
Personal rights are not
valuable.
valuable in monetary terms.
3. Proprietary rights are not
Personal rights are the
residual in character.
residuary rights which remain

Page No.# 11/14
after proprietary rights have
been subtracted.
4. Proprietary rights are
Personal rights are not
transferable.
transferable.
5. Proprietary rights are the
Personal rights are merely
elements of wealth for man.
elements of his well-being.
6. Proprietary rights possess not
Personal rights possess
merely judicial but also
merely judicial importance.
economic importance.

In the light of the above, it is clear that in distinction to an individual’s personal
right which is attached to his status, the proprietary right relates to his estate. On the
other hand, personal right or claim usually includes damages for loss of reputation,
pain, and suffering, etc.

61. A contrary interpretation wherein any claim (inclusive of personal and proprietary
claim) concerning defamation, assault, and other personal injuries not causing the death
of the party, being barred under Section 306 of 1925 Act, would entail different
standards being adopted for institution of suits under Legal Representative’s Suits Act,
1855 and continuation of pre-existing suit. The law has to be read harmoniously. There
is no logical or legal reasoning which can support a contrary interpretation to not allow
estate claims with respect to the categories of exceptions identified above.

62. It needs to be cleared that suppose a decree stands during an appeal process in
favor of the plaintiff and the defendant dies, then the entire claim is maintainable in
appeal. As the decretal amount has to be satisfied from the estate of the deceased,
then the legal representatives/executors/Administrator of the deceased defendant may
have to prosecute the appeal. However, in case the plaintiff does not have a decree on
the date of his death, then right to continue necessarily have to be determined is terms
of Section 306 of 1925 Act.

63. We may note that this Court herein is only answering the question on interpretation

Page No.# 12/14
of the applicable law and not expounding on the normative requirement as to whether
the policy adopted by the law applicable is correct or there is a need to change. English
law appears to have gone further to preserve tortious liabilities of the deceased
defendant. To this count, even judgments and Haryana Law Commission have also
taken a view to recommend amendments. We feel that it is appropriate to engage policy
experts to debate the need and necessity of expanding scope of Section 306 of 1925
Act. The policy consideration is best left to the Law Commission to see whether there is
a need to have a re-look at these provisions for future.

64. What falls from the above discussion are as under –
i. The common law maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ in India has
been statutorily modified by various statutory instruments such as Fatal Accidents’ Act
of 1855, Legal representatives’ Suits Act of 1855, Indian Succession Act of 1925, etc.;
ii. That the legal representative of the deceased can institute a fresh suit or be
sued afresh in terms Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 or in terms of Section 306 of
Indian Succession Act, 1925;
iii. Continuation of suit by or against the legal representative of the deceased has
to be in terms of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (substantive law);
iv. Procedural prescription under Order XXII of CPC, concerning substitution of
legal representative of the deceased party should be harmoniously construed with
Section 306 of Indian Succession Act.
v. The continuation of ‘right to sue’ under Order XXII Rule 2 read with Rule 4 is to
be seen on the date of death.
vi. Generally, all rights and liabilities to maintain a suit are carried to the legal
representative under Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, when
adjudicating claims under 1st exception to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, personal injury claims abate, while claims for or against the estate of the
deceased survive.”

20. In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Page No.# 13/14
Court as quoted hereinabove, the present writ petition cannot be
proceeded with at the instance of the substituted petitioner i.e. the
present petitioner and accordingly, this Court dismisses the instant
writ petition.

21. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, finds it very
pertinent to observe that the present writ petitioner, on her own had
submitted applications before the State Police Accountability
Commission as well as the Assam State Human Rights Commission.
The Police Accountability Commission did not take any steps in
pursuance to the application filed by the present petitioner and the
Assam State Human Rights Commission dropped the proceedings on
the ground of pendency of the criminal proceedings. These
applications which were filed by the present petitioner constituted
independent of the causes of action.

22. Under such circumstances, dehors the dismissal of the present
writ petition, it shall not bar the present petitioner to approach the
Police Accountability Commission in furtherance to the earlier
application so filed and challenge the decision of the Assam Human
Rights Commission, if so advised.

23. The above liberty is given to the present petitioner for the simple
reason that there exists a difference in the standing of a substituted

Page No.# 14/14
petitioner with that of a petitioner espousing an independent cause of
action. The substituted petitioner’s rights flow from the original
petitioner’s rights and if those rights were personal to the original
petitioner, the substituted petitioner is not invested with any right
upon the death of the original petitioner to carry forward the claim of
the original petitioner.

24. It is further observed that in terms with the liberty so granted, it
shall not be a bar for the petitioner to approach this Court again and
the dismissal of the present writ petition would not act as a res-
judicata.

25. With the above observations, the writ petition stands closed.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant