Death at police station alone does not establish police negligence, Delhi High Court says in setting aside NHRC compensation order.

After the deceased’s wife died in unnatural circumstances, he voluntarily visited a police station to inquire about her death.

While there, he entered a room and died by hanging.

The SDM’s inquest report found no evidence of scuffle or police torture and identified the wife’s death as a possible reason for the suicide.

The NHRC recommended that the petitioner pay ₹5,00,000 to the deceased’s next of kin, finding that the police had failed in their duty to prevent the death.

The petitioner challenged that recommendation, contending that the deceased had not been detained and that there was no evidence of police negligence.

1. Whether the deceased was in police custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty while at the police station.

2. Whether the police could be held negligent in preventing a human-rights violation, and the petitioner liable to pay compensation, merely because the deceased died by suicide on police premises.

Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 permits consideration of negligence by a public servant in preventing a human-rights violation.

Negligence means a failure to exercise the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances reasonably demand to protect another person from injury.

Death on police premises does not, by itself, create a presumption of negligence; liability must be supported by demonstrable negligence, such as a specific omission, prior knowledge of imminent danger, or a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm.

The Court found no material showing that the police had brought, summoned, detained, or restricted the deceased; the CCTV footage instead showed him moving freely within the premises.

The footage also indicated that the incident may have occurred without a reasonable opportunity for police intervention, while the inquest report disclosed no evidence of scuffle or torture.

In the absence of evidence of a specific omission, prior knowledge of imminent danger, or an opportunity to prevent the death, the NHRC could not infer negligence solely from the location of the death or impose liability with the benefit of hindsight.

The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the pending application was disposed of.