Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra [March 18, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 232; [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1014; 2024 3 Supreme 424
Background and Facts
Somnath, the appellant, was subjected to abusive and humiliating treatment by a police inspector while in custody. He was paraded half-naked with shoes around his neck and verbally and physically assaulted. After being produced before the Magistrate, Somnath was granted bail, but the police delayed his release for several hours, amounting to illegal detention. Somnath and his family lodged complaints, prompting an internal inquiry that found the inspector responsible. However, the Special Inspector General of Police only issued a "strict warning" to the officer, without substantial punitive action.
Somnath filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings against the inspector. The High Court partially granted his plea, ordering the inspector to pay ₹75,000 as compensation but declined to initiate criminal prosecution, citing the protection available under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which bars prosecution after six months of the alleged incident.
Issues
Was the compensation of ₹75,000 adequate for the violation of Somnath’s fundamental rights?
Should criminal prosecution have been ordered against the police inspector despite statutory protection?
Was the disciplinary action taken against the police officer sufficient given the gravity of misconduct?
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
The Supreme Court condemned the police inspector’s conduct as a blatant abuse of power and a violation of Somnath’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court recognized the inadequacy of the disciplinary action and the compensation awarded by the High Court. It observed that the inspector’s actions contravened established guidelines on the treatment of detainees, notably those set in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Sube Singh v. State of Haryana.
However, the Court refrained from ordering criminal prosecution, considering the inspector’s retirement and the compensation already paid. The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation by an additional ₹1,00,000, which had already been paid by the inspector, and emphasized that such acts of custodial violence and humiliation must be met with a zero-tolerance approach by the judiciary.
The Court reiterated the need for strict adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards by police and issued directives to reinforce accountability in police conduct. It underscored that compensation is a necessary but not always sufficient remedy for custodial abuse, and the judiciary must balance justice with mercy in cases involving retired officials who have made amends.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding individual dignity and personal liberty, especially against abuse by law enforcement. It sets a precedent for enhanced compensation in custodial abuse cases and reaffirms the principle that police officers are not above the law, even if statutory protections exist. The ruling also highlights the importance of procedural safeguards and the judiciary’s role in holding public officials accountable for violations of fundamental rights.
Citation
2024 INSC 232; [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1014; 2024 3 Supreme 424
RELATED Blog
0 comments