The agencies include state governments, civic bodies and panchayats, as well as contractors employed by them; injury or death could be due to such causes as open gutters, uncovered tube wells, and damaged roads and lampposts.
In a major judgment that enlarges the scope of right to life, the Delhi high court has ruled that citizens must be compensated by government and public agencies for injury or death caused by negligence. The agencies include state governments, civic bodies and panchayats, as well as contractors employed by them; injury or death could be due to such causes as open gutters, uncovered tube wells, and damaged roads and lampposts.
The ruling by justice S Ravindra Bhat was part of an order where Rs10 lakh was awarded as compensation to the wife of a hawker killed four years ago by getting caught in a fight between two stray bulls in Delhi. Shakuntala, the widow of Sita Ram, who was 40 when he died, had argued that he was the sole bread winner in a family of nine, including five children and Ram’s aged parents. The judge said the Delhi municipal corporation had defied Ram’s right to life, and the Delhi government and the civic body “infracted in executing the public duty, as a result of which two bulls mangled the deceased causing his untimely demise”.
“His death has left the rest of the family to the mercy of fate, and to fend for themselves,” justice Bhat said. “Due to his premature demise, not only has the daily household suffered a setback, but also his children’s future has become an abyss, as there is no means of funding their education.” The judge rejected the civic body’s defence that Shakuntala’s case could be tried through a civil dispute and that it wasn’t responsible for the bulls’ fight.
The civic body had said: “[Because of the] peculiar conditions in India, those who ply their wares and engage in hawking and other such commerce on public streets are deemed to be aware of the likely hazard and probable harm which would befall them in the event of wayward cattle or other animals attacking them.”
The court ruled: “It has been established for nearly three decades that the right to life enshrined in article 21 [of the constitution of India] is not a right to mere vegetative existence, but to a life of dignity and a decent standard of living.
“The injury suffered due to the states or their agencies’ neglect in the performance, or the wrongful performance of their duties, is as actionable in public law as in tort. In this background, the failure of the state to prevent the occurrence of negligent acts by its employees, or those who are accountable to it, within premises under its control or in respect of zones of activities falling within their jurisdiction, strikes at the root of the right to life, guaranteed under article 21.”
The court also said: “The relief of compensation under public law for injuries caused on account of negligent action or inaction or indifference of public functionaries or for the violation of fundamental rights is a part of the evolving public law jurisprudence in India.
“Compensation under public law [should be] understood in the context of the failure of the state to protect the rights of citizens, particularly of the marginalised and the disempowered.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}