Meghalaya High Court fixes ₹10 to ₹15 lakh as compensation for custodial deaths; says State should bleed for deterrent effect

The Meghalaya High Court recently remarked that custodial deaths of prisoners will stop only when the compensation amount for such violence is pegged at a level where the State will bleed to make the payment [In Re suo motu custodial violence and other matters relating prison conditions to vs State of Meghalaya]..The Court explained that the amount should be one that the State is not happy to pay off.A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice HS Thangkhiew added that incidents of custodial death are a slur on civilised society."A death in custody is a slur on a civilised State and completely unacceptable. Ideally, there should be no death, except due to natural causes, while in custody. Of course, the natural causes are beyond the control of the State and convicts serving long sentences may also have age-related problems which may lead to their death," the bench observed..The Court, therefore, proceeded to fix the compensation amounts that should be payable by the State in instances of such violence. Where the victim is above 45 years of age, the compensation to be paid by the State to the kin of the victim was fixed at ₹10 lakh.For those in the age group of 30 to 45 years, the compensation to be paid should be ₹12 lakh.For victims of custodial deaths below 30 years, the amount fixed was ₹ 15 lakh. .The Court also expressed its distress over the number of deaths of under-trial prisoners at the hands of investigating authorities who used third-degree methods to get information.The bench observed that such excesses by the State through its police personnel may result in admissions that are inaccurate and only made to avoid or delay further torture. "If police brutalities and inhuman treatment of persons in custody have to be arrested, the compensation for custodial death has to be pegged at a level where the State will bleed to make the payment; not what the State is happy to pay off," the bench added. .The judgment was passed in a case initiated suo motu on the issue of custodial deaths in Meghalaya. It noted that since 2012, there have been 53 instances of custodial deaths of which 25 deaths were due to natural causes while the remaining 28 were found to be cases of unnatural deaths."While the State has every right to arrest a person during an investigation ... the State is responsible for his well-being. If such person dies while in the State’s custody, unless the State is able to affirmatively establish that the cause of death was natural, it will be inferred that the person died an unnatural death," the bench underscored. .It also refused to accept the "Haryana Model" which had fixed different compensation amounts for custodial deaths in that State. The bench even rejected the contention of the State government that since the "Haryana Model" has been endorsed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Court should let the matter rest. The Court noted that the Haryana Model had fixed only ₹ 7.5 lakh as the highest amount of compensation to be paid to any of the victims of custodial deaths."It appears that the amount of ₹7.5 lakh as maximum as suggested by the State may not hurt the State as much as paying the compensation of Rs.15 lakh may have," the bench opined..Compensation has to be both adequate for the families of the victims and to act as a deterrent so that the State and its officials remain in check, the Court made it clear. "The quantum indicated by the State in its notification reveals the amount that the State is comfortable paying. If the State is comfortable paying an amount it almost amounts to endorsing its wrongdoing and perpetuating the same rather than paving the way for there being no unnatural death while in custody," the Court held. .Dr. N Mozika assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae along with advocate S Rumthao.The State authorities were represented by Additional Advocate General K Khan, Additional Senior Government Advocate AH Kharwanlang, Government Advocates S Ain, S Laloo, JN Rynjah and advocates S Dey, K Baruah, P Agarwal, SA Sheikh, AH Hazarika, J Shylla and D Dkhar..[Read Judgment]