Rajasthan HC orders inquiry against tehsildar, ₹2 lakh fine for unlawful detention of HIV+ man

The Rajasthan High Court recently ordered disciplinary inquiry against a tehsildar for failing to release a man from civil custody despite his suspension of sentence in a land encroachment case.

A Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal also directed the officer to pay a compensation of ₹2 lakh to the detainee, who has since been released from custody. The Court said that the State shall not pay the amount in any manner.

The inquiry has been ordered to find out whether tehsildar Tejpal Pareek deliberately ignored the sentence suspension order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.

While the inquiry is pending, Pareek shall remain attached to the revenue headquarters, the Court added.

The Bench said it had never encountered such a case where an officer of the revenue administration continued the custody of a “sick and helpless” person despite the passing of an order of suspension by his superior, repeated representations by the detainee’s wife and the institution of a habeas corpus petition in the High Court.

“The stubbornness, the obstinacy, the contumacious defiance of the rule of law exhibited by respondent No. 4 (teshildar) in these proceedings is of a character and degree that this Court has not previously encountered and hopes never to encounter again,” the Court said.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by the detainee’s wife after authorities failed to release him from custody despite a suspension of sentence ordered on April 15.

The detention ordered on March 5 was connected to encroachment of government land by the detainee. After the revenue authorities found him guilty of the crime, he was sentenced to three months’ civil imprisonment under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 

The District Collector later dismissed his appeal. However, the Additional Divisional Commissioner on April 15 ordered suspension of the detainee’s sentence after he agreed to remove the encroachment.

However, since the detainee continued to remain in custody, his wife approached the High Court. Following the Court's intervention, he was then released from custody on June 8.

In the final order passed on June 12, the Court noted that the detainee, who suffers from HIV, allegedly remained in unlawful custody for 53 days. The Court also noted that even his wife suffers from cancer. 

“The detenue required continuous treatment for HIV, while the petitioner-wife, a cancer patient, was simultaneously deprived of the companionship, care and support of her husband. The consequences of the illegal detention, therefore, were not confined merely to a deprivation of physical liberty; they extended into the realm of human suffering, medical vulnerability and familial distress,” the Bench said.

It refused to accept the tehsildar’s claim that he was unaware about the suspension of sentence order.

The Court said the appellate authority orders are usually communicated to the subordinate authority and even the proceedings are conducted in presence of government counsel or law officers. 

The Court also noted the tehsildar’s own submission that he came to know about the suspension of sentence order only on June 1. Even then, he took no steps for seven days to release the detainee, the Court observed.

“This continued detention, in the face of admitted knowledge, is not merely an administrative failure. It is a conscious, deliberate, and wilful deprivation of personal liberty in defiance of the order of a superior authority. It is, in the language of constitutional law, a gross violation of Article 21,” the Bench said.

In a strong indictment of the officer, the Court added:

“An officer of this character is not merely a liability to the revenue administration. He is a threat to civil society. He is a threat to the constitutional order. He is a threat to the very idea that government is accountable to the governed."

The Court added that an officer who is capable of such brazen defiance of his superiors' orders can cause incalculable mischief with the official documents, registers, revenue records, and correspondence that fall within the domain of his office.

In conclusion, the Court declared the detainee’s continued detention after June 1 as illegal . However, the Court clarified that the actual period of illegal detention is subject to the finding of the departmental inquiry. 

“In view of the foregoing discussion, findings, and directions, this Court is satisfied that the continued detention of the detenue after suspension of his  sentence was wholly unjustified and constituted a grave infringement of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court ruled.

Advocate Jogendra Singh appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Deepak Choudhary appeared for the State.