a day ago
State vicariously responsible for Custodial death, says Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held the State vicariously liable for unnatural deaths in judicial custody, asserting that it has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety and dignity of incarcerated individuals.
The verdict came on Thursday from justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a case involving the custodial death of a Tihar Jail inmate, Javed, just two days before he was to be released in 2013. The court not only awarded compensation to Javed's legal heirs but also issued sharp observations on the failure of prison authorities to prevent gang violence in prisons.
'The State, owing a duty to ensure the security of the general public, including incarcerated persons, is responsible to compensate in cases of unnatural deaths in custody,' the court ruled. The judgment squarely placed the blame on systemic lapses and emphasised that the State's responsibility doesn't end at incarceration—it includes active efforts to prevent violence and the proliferation of gangs inside jails.
Javed, who was serving a seven-year sentence for robbery, was due to be released on May 5, 2013. But two days before his release, his mother, Shakila, was informed that he had succumbed to injuries following a violent clash between rival gangs inside the prison.
In her plea, Shakila had demanded a judicial inquiry, alleging that jail staff were responsible for her son's death. She also sought compensation, stating she was financially dependent on him. In December 2014, she was granted ₹1 lakh as interim relief based on recommendations by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The case was closed in 2017, following Shakila's death the previous year. But in 2019, her four children and five grandchildren successfully moved to revive the case.
The Delhi government opposed the plea, contending that Javed had died in an intra-gang fight and that the petitioners were not eligible for compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme (DVCS), 2018, as they were not 'dependents' after Shakila's death.
Rejecting these claims, the court said Shakila had been wrongfully denied rightful compensation during her lifetime. 'She was forced to come to this court… but before the petition could be decided, she passed away,' the court observed.
Highlighting NHRC's findings, the judge said there were evident lapses by jail personnel. He ordered the Delhi government to immediately pay ₹2 lakh to Javed's legal heirs and asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to conduct a fact-finding exercise to determine additional compensation.
In a noteworthy interpretation of DVCS, the court ruled that siblings and grandchildren of deceased victims are also entitled to claim compensation—regardless of marital status. 'Since this court has already held that a sibling is also entitled, there can be no distinction made between a married or unmarried sibling either. A similar logic would be applicable in the case of the children of the sibling(s),' the order said.
Though the court declined to order a new judicial inquiry—citing prior acquittals in the case—it rebuked prison authorities for failing to maintain order. 'The fact that rival gangs had access to weapons or tools to cause injuries, resulting in death, reflects poorly on the discharge of duties by the jail administration,' the court said.
This ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny of custodial violence in the Capital. Just days earlier, a preliminary report on the death of 24-year-old Aman Poddar inside the Saket court lock-up had flagged grave lapses, including the failure to separate rival inmates and delays in police response. Echoing that case, the court remarked: 'The State cannot escape liability by attributing the death to a gang altercation. Preventing such violence is a core part of the State's responsibility.'
