Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Mar 11: The High Court today dismissed the Public Interest Litigation seeking compensation to the pellet victims of 2016 unrest and recording that it is not a case where compensation is being sought or claimed for wrong doing of any security force personnel but for discharge of public duty by them who were being attacked by violent mobs during that period.
Click here to watch video
The Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice D S Thakur after considering the matter opined that so far as the Constitutional tort is concerned, the State has fulfilled its obligation, inasmuch as they have made ex-gratia payments to most of the injured persons. “With respect to the remaining it is categorically stated that their cases shall be decided in tune with the Government policy in that behalf in due course of time”, DB said.
Court has left it open for those individuals who feel that they have not adequately been compensated commensurate with the injury by saying that nothing can come in his way to claim such compensation as he may wish from the State under the private law in an action based on tort through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Court said that in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this PIL cannot grant a relief to the satisfaction of every such individual allegedly injured in police action. “…in the guise of protests, the security personnel, their camps and police stations were targeted by unruly crowds, and that, if the protest is not peaceful and the security persons are attacked by huge and violent mobs, they have to necessarily use force in their self-defence and for protecting public property”, court recorded in the judgment.
The PIL was filed by lawyers body way back in July 2016 seeking the authorities be prohibited from using or caused to be used pellet guns as a means of crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir and the same be totally banned as a means of crowd control and all the officers who took the decision of using pellet guns at the protestors on July 8, 2016 and those who actually fired the pellet guns be prosecuted as also cases be registered against them.
The lawyers body was also seeking compensation to all those persons whose names mentioned in the petition as well as those whose particulars will come to the notice of the court during the hearing of the matter. When the matter was considered on September 2016, the Division Bench in a detailed order had recorded that it is manifest that there is violence by unruly mobs, use of force is inevitable which has to be decided by the persons in charge of place where the attack is happening as to what kind of force has to be used.
The said order came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court remanded the case back to High Court for its trial to deal with the prayers made in the petition except the prayer relates to ban on use of pellet in the State. The issue of ban on use of pellet is still pending before the Apex Court.
In light of the response filed by the health authorities DB is of the view that since medical treatment has duly been extended to all the injured persons, some of whom have been referred to other hospitals in the country as well and special doctors have also been called from outside the State for treatment and conduct of surgeries of some other patients, nothing more needs to be done as regards to these prayers.
On the compensation to the injured persons, Secretary Home Department has stated that there is no specific policy or rule in vogue relating to compensation to the alleged victims of pellet guns. However, a committee constituted in this regard to identify the persons who were permanently, partially disabled during the law and order disturbances in Kashmir from July 2016 to November 2016 and a list of persons who had been injured during the said period accorded sanction to the payment of Rs 75,000 to 54 persons for permanent disablement and Rs 50, 000 to 10 persons for partial disablement.
“In any case, since the Government has discharged its obligation, nothing more needs to be done in this PIL and for the above reasons, this PIL merits dismissal and is therefore, dismissed”, DB concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
