1985 firing: HC split on compensation

The issue relates to the death of one Gulam Rasul Rathod (29),a resident of Jamadar Maholla in Delhi Chakla area of the Walled City of Ahmedabad on June 20,1985. On that day,due to communal tension in the city,the authorities had imposed a curfew. However,the procession of

Lord Jagannath was decided to be taken out. And to prevent any untoward incident during the procession,the government had roped in the Army to assist the local police.

When the procession was passing through the Jordan Road of Delhi Chakla area,stone pelting was reported. To control the situation,authorities had resorted to firing. Rathod,who had claimed to have gone on the roof of his neighbour’s house to get a quilt that was kept there to dry,was hit by a bullet and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. Later,Rathod’s family members demanded compensation for his death while alleging that the firing was a reckless and intentional act of the Army against a Muslim crowd.

The Civil Court had dismissed a tort suit in this regard and the order was upheld by a single-judge bench of the HC. Subsequently,the issue came before the Division Bench. Justice Brahmbhatt upheld the single-judge bench’s order and opined not to give compensation to Rathod’s heirs. Referring to the ‘sensitive’ nature of the Jordan Road area,Justice Brahmbhatt had held that the act of firing five rounds of bullets was not unjustifiable.

Justice Patel,on the other hand,has opined to grant compensation to the heirs of the deceased when the state has not produced any evidence to justify the act of the officer. “The courts of the country have to render enough zeal to right to life of any citizen and any lenient approach on the part of the Court to leave room for a casual or cavalier approach on the part of the State or any of its officer would result into failure on the part of the Court to discharge its obligation with which the power is so vested in the judiciary by the constitution of the country,” Justice Patel observed.

“Any casual or cavalier approach on part of the State can neither be leniently viewed nor can be countenanced by the Court. But on the contrary,such approach not only deserves to be deprecated strongly,but should result into heavy compensation for deprivation of the life to the citizen,” he added.

The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court.