CIA-3: HUMANS RIGHTS LAW

CASE ANALYSIS OF BHIM SINGH VS STATE OF JAMMU BY

FILAC APPROACH:
Submitted to: Cicily Martin
Submitted by: Mohd Anas Khan
Reg. No. 22214067

Title of case: Bhim Singh vs state of Jammu

Citation: AIR 1986 SC 494
Court: Supreme court of India
Bench: O. Chinnappa Reddy and V. Khalid
Date decided: 22 November 1985
Appellant: Bhim Singh
Respondent: State of Jammu and Kashmir

Bhim Singh vs State of Jammu & Kashmir is a well-known case in Indian

constitutional law that deals with the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly
the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court of India examined the
constitutionality of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) in this
case, which allows for the detention of individuals without trial for up to two years.
A division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and
H.K. Sema heard the case.

Facts of the Case:

In 1985, Mr. Bhim Singh, an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested and held
in police custody, preventing him from attending a legislative assembly session on
September 11th. He was taken into custody by the Quiz Kunda police station's
house officer on September 10th, following allegations that he had delivered an
inflammatory or seditious speech at a public meeting near the parade ground in
Jammu on September 8th. Mr. Singh was not produced before a magistrate until
September 13th. During this time, a voting session took place in the assembly, and
his absence meant he was unable to cast a crucial vote for the person he wanted to
support.

Upon investigation by the Supreme Court, it was determined that Mr. Singh had
been illegally detained by the police, who acted with malice and mischievous
intent. The magistrate also acted irresponsibly and without regard for Mr. Singh's
personal liberty by ordering his remand without his production before the court.
These actions constituted a serious violation of Mr. Singh's constitutional rights
under articles 21 and 22(2).

Issues before the Court:

The main issue in the case of Mr. Bhim Singh, an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir, is
whether his detention by the police on the intervening night between 9th and 10th
September 1985, and his subsequent prevention from attending the legislative
assembly sessions on 11th September 1985, qualified as false imprisonment. The
Supreme Court conducted an inquiry and found that Mr. Bhim Singh was illegally
detained by the police personnel with mischievous and malicious intent. The Court
held that the Magistrate who ordered for remand without producing Mr. Bhim
Singh before him acted without any sense of responsibility or genuine concern for
personal liberty.

The petitioner denied being brought in front of the Magistrate on 11th of

September 1985 and further denied being brought in front of the Sub Judge on 13th
of September 1985. The petitioner also denied being examined by any doctor for
the purpose of obtaining a Medical Certificate that was used for obtaining a
remand for 1 day from the Sub Judge. However, the petitioner accepts that on 14th
of September 1985 he was produced before the Sub Judge, Jammu and remanded
for 2 days in judicial custody. He also accepts that thereafter, on 16th of September
1985, he was brought in front of the Additional Sessions Judge and was granted
bail. The petitioner has also contended that during police custody, he has been
further harassed by the police.

On the other hand, Inspector General of Police, Shri M.M. Khajuria and
Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, Shri M.A.Mir, contended that they received a
notice to arrest Bhim Singh from the Police Control Room on 10 September 1985.
They further stated that the petitioner was brought to the District Headquarters as
instructed and given proper facilities of water, food, and rest. The petitioner was
brought to Pacca Danga Police Station at 9:30 pm, and officers were put in place to
pay attention to whether the petitioner had travelled safely through the Udhampur
region. The Executive Magistrate First Class signed a remand to keep the petitioner
in police custody for a period of 2 days on 11 September 1985. After the expiry of
the first remand, a further remand for one day from the Sub-Judge was obtained on
13 September 1985, with the reason that Bhim Singh was sick (Medical Certificate
attached). After the expiry of the second remand, the petitioner was produced
before the Sub Judge on 14 September 1985-, and 2-days judicial custody was
obtained. Thereafter, on 16 September 1985, the petitioner was brought in front of
the Additional Sessions Judge, where his bail was granted.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the detention of Mr. Bhim Singh was
illegal and qualified as false imprisonment. The police arrested and detained him
with mischievous and malicious intent, and the Magistrate, who ordered for
remand without producing Mr. Bhim Singh before him acted without any sense of
responsibility or genuine concern for personal liberty.

Decision:

The Court criticized the police officers for their high-handed actions and expressed
concern over the violation of personal liberty of citizens, including members of the
legislative assembly. The judges emphasized that police officers have a duty to
respect the personal liberty of citizens and not act lawlessly. They further added
that the violation of constitutional and legal rights cannot be compensated merely
by setting the victim free, and that monetary compensation in the form of
exemplary costs is necessary in cases of such violation of fundamental rights. The
Court referred to previous cases of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr. and
Sebastian Hongray v. UOI, where it was highlighted, that compensation should be
awarded in cases of violation of fundamental rights. The petitioner in this case was
awarded 50000 rupees by the respondent, State of Jammu and Kashmir, to be paid
within 2 months of the judgement. The amount was to be deposited with the
Registrar of the Court and then paid to the petitioner.

Analysis:

In its judgment, the Court recognized the importance of the right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held
that the State's power to detain individuals under preventive detention laws, such as
the PSA, must be exercised with caution and only in cases where there is a genuine
threat to public order. The Court observed that the detention of an individual under
such laws without sufficient cause and evidence violates the fundamental rights of
the individual and is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The Court examined the constitutionality of the PSA and observed that the law was
enacted to prevent the activities of persons who are likely to endanger public order.
The Court also noted that the law provides for adequate safeguards to ensure that
the power to detain individuals under the law is not misused. The Court noted that
the PSA provides for an independent advisory board, which examines the grounds
of detention and makes recommendations to the detaining authority.

However, the Court also noted that the power to detain individuals under
preventive detention laws is an exception to the general rule that no person shall be
deprived of their life or personal liberty without the due process of law. The Court
held that the power to detain individuals under preventive detention laws must be
exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The Court also examined the detention of Bhim Singh under the PSA and observed
that the detaining authority had failed to provide sufficient grounds for his
detention. The Court held that the detention of Bhim Singh was arbitrary and
illegal and ordered his immediate release.

Conclusion:

This case highlights the issue of illegal detention by the police, which is a serious
violation of human rights. The Constitution guarantees every person the right to
personal liberty, freedom, and dignity, which cannot be taken away even during an
emergency. False imprisonment is an infringement of these rights. Even prisoners
have human rights, and the authorities cannot torture or torment them
unnecessarily. If a person is unlawfully confined by a government officer, they or
someone on their behalf can file a writ of habeas corpus, which ensures their
liberty. Additionally, a person facing false arrest or imprisonment can use
reasonable force for self-defense, provided that the force used is reasonable given
the circumstances. In the case of 'D.K.Basu v.State of West Bengal', guidelines
regarding the rights of arrested persons were established.

The CrPC mandates that an arrested person should be produced before the
Magistrate or Court having jurisdiction in the case without unnecessary delay, as
per Sections 56 and 76. The arrested person should not be detained for more than
24 hours, and should be produced before the Magistrate within this time frame,
excluding the time required for travel from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's
Court. Failure to follow these requirements would make the arrest unlawful.