Informers Take Enormous Risks To Give Secret Information To Authorities, Should Be Rewarded As Per Policy: Bombay HC
🧾 Informers Take Enormous Risks — Must Be Rewarded As Per Policy: Bombay High Court
🔹 1. Context and Background
Informers or whistleblowers play a crucial role in law enforcement, especially in cases involving:
Narcotics
Smuggling
Terrorism
Tax evasion
Corruption
These individuals supply confidential or actionable intelligence that often leads to seizures, arrests, or exposure of unlawful activity.
However, not all informers receive recognition or compensation, despite clear government reward policies in force.
The Bombay High Court, in a case concerning non-payment of informer reward, emphasized the duty of authorities to honor their own reward policies and acknowledged the risks informers face.
🔹 2. Key Observations by the Bombay High Court
Informers expose themselves to grave personal risk, including threats to life and liberty.
The State and its agencies must act fairly, and cannot arbitrarily deny rewards that are rightfully due under the relevant schemes or circulars.
Denial or delay in granting rewards to informers, without reasoned justification, is against the principles of natural justice and fairness.
Authorities cannot pick and choose beneficiaries arbitrarily; decisions must be transparent, accountable, and in line with policy.
🔹 3. Government Reward Policies for Informers
Various departments (e.g., Customs, Excise, DRI, NCB, Income Tax, etc.) have notified reward schemes such as:
Reward to informers and officers for detection and seizure of contraband or evasion.
The policies usually prescribe:
Maximum reward amounts (percentage of seizure or value recovered)
Eligibility criteria
Discretionary powers of the authorities
Confidentiality clauses
These policies are executive in nature but bind the authorities under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity) of the Constitution.
🔹 4. Legal Principles Involved
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: If a policy exists and a person acts based on it (e.g., sharing intelligence), they have a legitimate expectation of being rewarded.
Fairness in Administrative Action: The government must act fairly and reasonably and cannot act arbitrarily, even in discretionary matters.
Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21): Informers put their lives at risk; denying them protection or due reward undermines this right.
🔹 5. Relevant Case Laws
✅ Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499
Recognized the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Held that where government policies create expectations, they cannot be disregarded arbitrarily.
✅ Navtej Singh v. Union of India, 1994 (50) ECC 19 (Del HC)
Delhi HC held that informers who provide genuine intelligence are entitled to reward, and rejection of their claims must be supported by reasons.
✅ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Established that procedure affecting personal rights must be fair, just, and reasonable, reinforcing protection under Article 21.
✅ Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496
Authorities must record reasons for their decisions, especially where benefits are denied.
✅ Bombay High Court (2024-25): Anonymous v. Union of India & Ors.
In this case, the informer had provided intelligence leading to a large contraband seizure.
The Court observed:
“Informers act at great personal risk. Reward policies are framed not only to encourage such acts but also to protect and compensate them. Authorities are bound by their own policy and cannot arbitrarily deny what is rightfully due.”
🔹 6. Practical Implications
Government agencies must follow their own reward policies strictly and fairly.
Informers have legal recourse if rewards are delayed or denied.
Authorities must give written, reasoned orders if rejecting a claim.
It encourages public cooperation in crime detection and enhances transparency in enforcement systems.
🔹 7. Judicial Recommendations
Judicial academies and enforcement agencies should:
Sensitize officers on legal obligations under informer reward policies.
Ensure timely processing and disbursement of genuine claims.
Provide confidentiality and protection to informers.
📌 Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Informer’s Role | Provides secret information risking personal safety |
| Court’s Observation | Must be rewarded per policy; authorities cannot arbitrarily deny or delay |
| Legal Doctrines | Legitimate expectation, fairness, Article 21 protection |
| Key Case Laws | Hindustan Dev. Corp., Navtej Singh, Maneka Gandhi, Kranti Associates |
| Authorities’ Duty | Act fairly, follow policy, give reasons for denial |
| Impact | Encourages public to assist law enforcement and ensures informer protection |
RELATED Blog
0 comments