Shakeel Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors.
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The city of Mumbai had a torrid time from 6th December 1992
till 12th March 1993. Mumbai witnessed perhaps the worst mob frenzy,
violence, communal tension and riots from 6 th December 1992 to 10 th
December 1992 and from 6th January 1993 to 20th January 1993. There
were many incidents of arson and violence resulting in a large-scale loss
of lives and damage to properties. The Police resorted to firing at many
places. Ultimately, Army was called to aid the civil a dministration.
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 in various parts of the city on 12 th March 1993. In
December 1992 and January 1993, there were about 900 deaths, 168
709
persons were reported missing and about 2036 persons suffered injuries.
As a result of the serial bomb blasts of 12th March 1993, there were 257
deaths and 1400 people were injured.
2. The Government of Maharashtra by a notification dated 25 th
January 1993 constituted a Commission under the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the 1952 Act’) headed by Hon’ble Shr i
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, the then sitting Judge of the High C ourt 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 December 1992 on or after the
6th December 1992 and, again in January 1993, on or after
the 6th January 1993;
(ii) Whether any individual or group of individuals or any other
organizations, were 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.”
3. Subsequently, the Terms of Reference of the Commission were
expanded by the State Government and the following additional ter ms
were incorporated:
“(vi) The circumstances and the immediate cause of the incidents
commonly known as the serial bomb-blasts of the 12th 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
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
(viii) Whether the incidents referred to in term (i) and in term
(vi) were part of a common design.”
By a notification dated 23 rd January 1996,the State Government
disbanded the Commission on a very strange ground that there wa s an
inordinate delay on the part of the Commission in 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 revived by the notification dated 28th May 1996.
The Commission submitted its report on 16 th February 1998 which
consisted of two volumes. Volume-I contained the conclusio ns 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 Respondent-State 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 Respondent-State o f
Maharashtra that SUMMARY cases be re-opened 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
711
5. The entire petition revolves around the issue of 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 t he
Commission which dealt with the immediate causes of the
riots, the Commission opined that the causes were political,
socio-economic 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 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 day-to-day problems;
iv. The Commission found that there was a failure to registe r
crimes by the Police. There was a delay in registerin g
crimes. The investigation was carried out in an arbitra ry
and casual manner;
v. There was a delay in the disposal of criminal cas es
concerning riot-related offences;
vi. There was a lot of political interference in the func tioning
of the Police machinery;
vii. The commission concluded that the Police officials named
in paragraph 1.30 of V olume-I of its report, were found
actively participating in riots, communal incidents an d
incidents of looting, arson, etc. The Commission
recommended the initiation of disciplinary action against
the said Police officials;
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
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 s hort,
‘the Memorandum’). Most of the recommendations were accepte d by
the State Government. The action proposed by the State G overnment
was incorporated in the Memorandum. The response of the State
Government to some of the relevant recommendations reads thus:
i. The State Government noted that the Police have classif ied
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.
The State Government did not agree with some of the conclusions
drawn by the Commission especially its findings on the cause s of the
riots/violence. But, the Government agreed to act upon maj ority 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
713
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 recommendat ions of
the Commission is merely an eyewash. He pointed out that t he Police
Officials who were found guilty of serious misconduct by the Commission
were let off either by exonerating them or by imposing very m inor
penalties. He pointed out that almost all the prosecutions ended either in
discharge of the accused or in acquittal. He made a grievanc e that the
Legal Services Authorities constituted at the State and the District levels,
failed to render assistance to the victims of the offence and/ or to the
legal heirs of the victims of the offence, as the case m ay be. Legal
assistance was not provided to the victims or legal heirs o f the victims
for challenging the orders of discharge or acquittal and f or 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 fami lies of
missing persons were paid compensation, though, by legal fictio n, 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 he irs. 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 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 a cquittal or
discharge. He submitted that some such orders were unsucce ssfully
challenged before the higher forum. His submission is that w ith the
passage of time, no directions are warranted in this petition.
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
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 petit ioner. 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 Governme nt to
implement the recommendations. A perusal of the affidavits filed in this
petition as well as connected petitions which were dispos ed of by the
order dated 30 th August 2022, shows that while the State Government
disputed most of the conclusions drawn by the Commission regar ding
the causes of the riots, most of the recommendations regarding taking
corrective measures were accepted as can be seen fr om 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 dated 13th March 2020 of
Shri Amitabh Gupta, the Principal Secretary, Home D epartment,
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 filed revision applications against orders of discharge dated 16th
April 2003 of two officials. The revision applications were dismi ssed.
The matters were carried to this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions,
which were dismissed on 4th July 2011. In the case of six police officials,
orders of acquittal were passed on 18th November 2005, and one officer
was acquitted by an order dated 9 th September 2014. These orders of
acquittal were not challenged. Out of nine police officials, seven ha ve
already been superannuated. The State Government has not stat ed the
reasons for not questioning the orders of acquittal. The Sta te should
have been vigilant and proactive in these cases. Now it is too late in the
715
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 dismis sed 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 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 Litigat ion, 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 lear ned
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 Sessions Court to dispose of the pending case
at the earliest. Ninety-seven cases are on dormant file s. The reason
must be that either the accused therein are not tra ceable 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 t ake
appropriate steps for tracing the accused. The State Gover nment will
have to set up a special cell for tracing the accused.
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
Failure To Provide Legal Aid To The Victims
14. Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned senior counsel made a
grievance that the victims of the offences ought to have been provided
legal aid by the State and the District Legal Servic es Authorities
established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 198 7 (for short,
‘the 1987 Act’) for challenging the orders of acquittal. His gr ievance
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:
“12. Criteria for giving legal services — Every person who
has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to lega l 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, cas te
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 T raffic
(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 St ate
717
Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme
Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or 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 servic es under the
1987 Act. The meaning of the adjective “ethnic” according to Merriam-
Webster dictionary is “of or relating to large groups of people classed
according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural
origin or background”. The term “ethnic” can be narrowly construed as
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 r iots
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 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 Sub-se ction (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 sub-Section (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 thos e were the
early days of the Legal Services Authorities. With the passage of time,
the Legal Services Authorities right from the Taluka le vel to national
level, have expanded their activities for effectively r endering legal
services. Now multiple activities are being conducted by t he Legal
Services Authorities at various levels. The scope of leg al services has
been considerably widened during the last few decades. Dur ing the
pandemic of COVID 19, these authorities reached the poor and nee dy
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
by providing assistance to them. We hope and trust that after 75 years
of independence, riot-like situations will never arise. Unfortunat ely, if
such situations arise, we are sure that the Legal Services Authorities at
various levels will come to the rescue of the victims of v iolence 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 Gupt a notes that
the State Government had appointed a Committee under the chairmanship
of the Director General of Police to scrutinize all case s 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, se ven cases
resulted in acquittal, and in one case, where the o ffence was
compoundable, the case was compounded.
Recommendation on Police Reforms
18. The Commission in its report has made several suggestio ns
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 day-
to-day functioning of the police. We may note here that with the passage
of time and with the advancement of technology, there ha s been a
considerable improvement in the communication systems us ed by the
Police. The Commission’s suggestion of setting up Rapid Action Squads
has been implemented. The Commission suggested that vario us steps
should be taken to boost the morale of the Police Force, such as providing
719
proper housing facilities to them, reducing political interference in the
day-to-day 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 ig nore 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
19. That takes us to the crucial issue of payment of 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 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 belatedly, by a Gov ernment
Resolution dated 8 th July 1993 (the first Government Resolution), a
decision was taken to give financial assistance to the per sons 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 a nd a half years
after the incidents of riots, the Government Resolution dated 22 nd July
1998 (the second Government Resolution) was issued, providing for giving
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
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.
21. The affidavit of Shri Amitabh Gupta dated 13 th March 2020
notes that 900 persons died in the riots and 168 persons were report ed
missing. He claimed that compensation has been paid to the legal heirs
of all 900 dead persons and family members of 60 missing persons. A
direction was issued by this Court on 30 th August 2022, directing the
State Government to disclose the details of the compensation paid to the
victims. It is necessary to quote the aforesaid order dated 30 th 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 exhibit-B at page 26 of the affidavit
filed by the State of Maharashtra dated 13.3.2020. We would
require information as under:-
(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 he irs 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.
721
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 compensa tion
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, undertaki ng
not submitted by the legal heirs, police case is regi stered
against the missing person, etc.
(iii) What is the reference to the compensation paid to he irs of
victims;
Reply – The compensation to legal heirs of victims an d the
compensation for the loss of property is given with refer ence 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 Annexure-R-2.
The compensation paid to the legal heirs of missing pers ons 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 Annexure-R-3.
(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 :-
(v) When was these compensations paid i.e. the time lag between
the date of the incident and the compensation being made.
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
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 ha d 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 sch eme to pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the legal heirs/family member s of the
missing persons. Now, coming to the missing persons, the family members
of only 60 missing persons have been paid compensation. As re gards
the family members of remaining 108 missing persons, compe nsation
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 s et 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 Service s Authority
(for short, ‘MSLSA’), to look into the records relating to the remaining
108 missing persons. We propose to direct the State Gove rnment to
nominate a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collec tor
and a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commiss ioner of
Police as the other two members of the Committee. The Committ ee
shall monitor the efforts made by the State Government to tr ace the
family members of missing persons, whose addresses are not available
and also to ensure that those eligible persons who have not made
procedural compliances are assisted to make necessary c ompliance.
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 be en
taken that compensation has been paid to those whose houses/ stalls/
huts were damaged or destroyed. Reliance is placed on the first
723
Government Resolution. The Resolution provided for giving following
assistance:
“Financial relief to the victims of bomb blasts in Mumbai city and
Mumbai suburbs on and after 12th 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.110 00/-
maximum.
5. For destroyed stall and shops: - for Destroyed stalls, am ount
should be given as subsidy equal to the cost of damage o r a
maximum of Rs.5000/-.
6. Assistance for ‘burnt carts’: - to the hand cart owners, w hose
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/- w hose
rickshaw is totally burnt.”
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
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. Th e 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 Re solutions.
Therefore, the Committee 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 term s 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 pa yment of the
compensation amount.
25. Even as regards the payment of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs
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 pe riod of six
months from 22nd July 1998 when the second Government Resolution
was issued.
26. Though as per the order dated 30 th August 2022, the State
Government was expected to give details about the time lag between
the date of the incident and the date of payment of compensati on, the
State Government has avoided to furnish the material particul ars 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 disbu rsing the
compensation amount. The State Government will have to provi de 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 pa yment will
725
have to be paid by the State Government. The Committee will have to
decide the issue of entitlement to interest in terms of th ese directions.
We cannot allow the victims to suffer only because there was a delay in
the disposal of this writ petition. The Committee can al ways take the
help of the Para Legal Volunteers to reach the persons who have been
deprived of compensation and to render assistance to them to compl y
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 fixe d
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 t ime.
28. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the followin g
order.
i. There shall be a Committee headed by the Member
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;
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 fami ly
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;
iii. The State Government shall also submit to the 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
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]
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
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 from 22nd January
1999 i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from
the date of the second Government Resolution, till actual
payment;
v. The Committee consisting of the Secretary of MSLSA 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% per annum from 8th January 1994
i.e. from the expiry of the period of six months from the
date of the First Government Resolution, till actual payment;
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;
vii. The State Government shall comply with the 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
727
by the Committee, 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 th e
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;
ix. The Committee shall seek necessary guidance from the
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 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.
29. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. A copy
of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Member Secretary of MSLSA.
Ankit Gyan Writ petition disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
SHAKEEL AHMED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]