Latest news with #Article21
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Human rights panel directs Haryana to pay man ₹50K
Four years after a physically disabled man was stripped and videographed while in Faridabad police custody in a case of matrimonial dispute, the Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) has taken strong exception and directed the state home department to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to the man for violation of right to life. The fine is to be recovered from the guilty police officials, officials said. (FILE) In its order on July 16, the full bench of HHRC, comprising chairperson justice Lalit Batra (retd) and members Kuldip Jain and Deep Bhatia, said an impartial inquiry conducted by the commission's investigation wing confirmed that two police officials, an assistant sub-inspector and a constable rank official, had compelled the man, a chartered accountant, to undress in custody. Such cruel and degrading treatment, particularly of a person with disability, is utterly unacceptable in a civilised society, the commission said. 'This incident challenges the very spirit of constitutional values and the notion of human dignity. No individual, regardless of the accusations against them, deserves to be subjected to such humiliation and public exposure. This act is a direct violation of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution,' the order said. The man, a resident of Faridabad, was arrested on May 24, 2021, in connection with a criminal case filed by his wife. In his complaint to HHRC, the man alleged that while he was in custody at Saran police station, Faridabad, he was stripped, photographed and filmed in a semi-naked condition. The visuals were circulated on social media. The incident, he said, caused him extreme mental trauma and public humiliation. He described the experience 'as akin to a living death' and said that the psychological trauma continues to weigh heavily on him, pushing him into a state of deep depression. According to the findings in the inquiry report of the director of investigation of the commission, it was found that on May 25, 2021, a brother-in-law of the complainant was allowed to take photos and record a video of the man while he was confined in the police lock-up in a semi-nude condition. 'The images and video footage were later circulated on social media, compounding the complainant's trauma, exposing him to public ridicule and causing deep psychological harm. The act of allowing civilians to capture visuals of a detainee, particularly in a compromised and vulnerable state, reflects a complete breakdown of custodial protocol and constitutes a direct violation of the complainant's right to privacy and dignity,' the report said. Police not only failed in their duty to protect the person in their custody, but actively enabled the public dissemination of humiliating content, resulting in irreversible reputational and emotional damage to the complainant, it added. In its order, HHRC said that the 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment' entitles the complainant to judicial protection, redressal and appropriate compensation under constitutional and human rights law. Puneet Arora, HHRC public relations officer, said the home department of the Haryana government has been ordered to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to the victim. This amount is to be recovered equally from the guilty police officials, he said. 'This compensation is not intended to represent the full measure of the harm suffered by the complainant, but is awarded as a symbolic acknowledgement of the violation of his human rights and human dignity,' the order said. 'Police custody must not turn into... torture and shame. This order sends a clear message that the system will not tolerate custodial abuse or the misuse of power,' Arora said.
News18
18 hours ago
- News18
Cop's Custodial Castration In J&K: SC Orders CBI Probe, Rs 50 L Compensation For Victim
Last Updated: The Supreme Court has directed the CBI to register an FIR and arrest officers responsible for the custodial torture and castration of a police constable in Jammu & Kashmir The Supreme Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR in the case of custodial torture and castration of a Jammu and Kashmir police constable, while also ordering the union territory administration to pay Rs 50 lakh as interim compensation to the victim. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that violations of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution warrant appropriate monetary redress. The compensation, the court observed, must serve as a balm to the victim and his family, without prejudice to other available civil or criminal remedies. The direction came in a plea filed by Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, a police constable, who had challenged the J&K and Ladakh High Court's September 18, 2023, decision. The High Court had dismissed his petition seeking registration of an FIR against senior police officials, transfer of investigation to the CBI, and quashing of an FIR registered against him. According to the plea, Chohan was summoned to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, on February 20, 2023, in relation to a narcotics inquiry. There, he was allegedly detained at the Joint Interrogation Centre and subjected to six days of inhuman custodial torture. His genitals and testicles were amputated, pepper was sprinkled on his private parts, and electric shocks caused a foot fracture. Despite this, an FIR was lodged against him for an alleged attempt to die by suicide. After examining medical records and hearing counsel, the Supreme Court held that the uncontested factual matrix presented a prima facie case of the 'most heinous form" of custodial torture and revealed the total apathy of the local police in initiating legal action. The bench held that the police's failure to register an FIR, despite compelling medical evidence indicating the commission of cognisable offences, constituted a direct violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court also faulted the High Court for refusing to apply binding precedent laid down by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates the registration of FIRs in cases disclosing cognisable offences. It held that allowing preliminary inquiries in custodial violence matters fosters institutional cover-ups and defeats the purpose of criminal law. With respect to transferring the case to the CBI, the bench noted that such power is reserved for exceptional cases. However, given the gravity of the offence, including the complete mutilation of the victim's genitalia and a subsequent institutional attempt to portray it as a suicide attempt, the transfer was held to be constitutionally imperative. The court observed that the State's theory of suicide was implausible when weighed against medical evidence and the timeline of injuries. It found the FIR's reference to a minor act of 'cutting a vein" grossly inconsistent with the reality of systematic custodial torture, which revealed a clear abuse of power. The bench stated that the High Court failed in its constitutional obligation to protect the dignity and fundamental rights of a citizen and did not account for the influence exerted by the accused police officials. It ruled that the victim's false implication in a counter-FIR was part of a coordinated attempt to shield the perpetrators. The court directed the State to immediately disburse Rs 50 lakh as interim compensation to the victim, clarifying that this does not bar his right to claim additional compensation before an appropriate forum. It further mandated the State to recover the amount from the guilty officials once the investigation or disciplinary proceedings are complete. In conclusion, the court directed the director of the CBI to register a case, constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), arrest the accused officers, and submit a status report by November 10, 2025. First Published: July 23, 2025, 22:24 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Deccan Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Disability rights and a case for prison reform
India's prisons remain structurally and operationally ill-equipped to meet the needs of disabled inmates. Lack of accessibility, specialised healthcare, assistive devices, and sensitised staff constitutes a denial of constitutional rights under Article 21. Rahul Bajaj
NDTV
6 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Medical Consent Rights Of Same-Sex Partners
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice to the Central government regarding a petition urging for the creation of guidelines to legally recognise non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives, thereby allowing them to give consent on each other's behalf in medical situations. Justice Sachin Datta sought responses from the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Law and Justice, Social Justice and Empowerment, and the National Medical Commission regarding the plea. The petition was filed by Arshiya Takkar, who is in a long-term same-sex relationship with advocate Ms Chand Chopra. The couple has been together since June 2015, celebrated their engagement in December 2019, and held a commitment ceremony in December 2023. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, which affirmed the fundamental right of same-sex couples to form unions, they legally married in New Zealand on December 14, 2023. The petition highlights the urgent need to recognise same-sex unions within the Indian medical framework. Ms Chopra's family resides outside Delhi or abroad, making it impractical for them to assist during medical emergencies. This leaves Takkar, her partner, ineligible to act as her medical representative, despite their committed relationship. Takkar contends that such exclusions are discriminatory, infringing upon constitutional guarantees under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Drawing on the precedent set in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, she argues that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates the fundamental rights to equality and freedom of expression. The petition further asserts that denying medical decision-making authority violates Article 19(1)(a) and (c), by limiting the Petitioner's right to express her relationship through mutual care. It also breaches Article 21, which ensures the right to live with dignity and autonomy in personal relationships. Takkar mentioned multiple rulings which emphasised legal recognition for "chosen families" within the LGBTQIA community. The petition argues that the refusal to extend medical rights to non-heterosexual partners conflicts with constitutional morality and evolving societal norms. Additionally, the plea claims that such denial contravenes India's international human rights commitments. Despite the Supreme Court's directive for a high-level committee to address the entitlements of queer couples, including medical decision-making, no actionable progress has been made. This legal vacuum, the petitioner says, continues to leave same-sex couples vulnerable during medical crises.
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Health
- New Indian Express
‘Reply on medical consent rights of same-sex partners'
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from three Union ministries and the National Medical Commission on a plea demanding legal recognition for non-heterosexual partners as legitimate medical representatives in emergencies and treatment scenarios. Justice Sachin Datta issued notice to the Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Law and Justice, and Social Justice and Empowerment, asking them to clarify their stand on a matter that strikes at the heart of healthcare equality and constitutional rights. The petition has been filed by Arshiya Takkar, who has urged the court to frame concrete guidelines recognising non-heterosexual partners as valid representatives capable of giving consent in medical decision-making. In the alternative, she has asked the court to declare that a medical power of attorney executed in advance should suffice for such partners to act as the patient's representative during emergencies. At the core of the legal challenge is Clause 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which mandates that consent for medical procedures be obtained from 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself'. The plea also invokes Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the denial of such a right infringes upon an individual's right to dignity and personal autonomy in relationships, particularly during moments of vulnerability like medical emergencies.
