Holding

The Court held that the District and Sessions Judge's finding of custodial shooting must be accepted, making the State liable to pay compensation, and that ICCPR provisions can be relied upon as facets of fundamental rights in India.

Summary

The People's Union for Civil Liberties filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a judicial inquiry into a alleged fake police encounter in Manipur where two villagers were taken in custody, transported to a distant location and shot dead, and also sought compensation for the families. The State of Manipur contested the allegations, claiming a genuine cross‑fire with terrorists. A District and Sessions Judge investigated and concluded that no encounter occurred and the two men were shot while in police custody. The Supreme Court accepted this finding, held that the State is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000 to each family, and affirmed that provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9(5)) can be read into Indian law as facets of fundamental rights, overriding any claim of sovereign immunity. The Court ordered payment of compensation and costs, and dismissed the petition with relief granted.

Issues considered

The factual finding whether the two deceased were shot while in police custody.
Whether compensation can be awarded under Article 32 for custodial deaths.
Whether Article 9(5) of the ICCPR can be incorporated into domestic law to enforce the right to compensation.
Whether the State can invoke sovereign immunity in cases of violation of Article 21.
The extent of judicial intervention in police actions in disturbed areas.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 300(1), s. Article 32
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966s. Article 9(5)

Subjects

custodial deathcompensationArticle 32Article 21ICCPRsovereign immunitypolice encounterdisturbed areafundamental rightsjudicial inquiry

Judgment

-- PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
v.
UN10N OF INDIA AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 5, 1997
A

B
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Art. 32-Writ Petition-Custodial
deaths-Award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to families of each of the
deceased.
c
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966-Article
9(5)-Custodial deaths-To what extent can the provisions of such Interna-
tional covenants/conventions be read into national laws-Held, provisions of
the Covenant which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental 1ights can
be relied upon by courts. D

This writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate order or direction to institute a judicial im1uiry into
alleged fake encounter by Imphal Police in which two persoris were killed
and to award compensation to the· members of the families of the deceased.
The petitioners alleged that certain villagers were caught by the police, E
taken in a truck to a distant place and two of them killed there; that three.
other persons who were also caught and taken away along with two
deceased persons were kept in police custody for a number of days and
taken to Mizoram and released on bail; that Hamar Peoples' Convention
was a political party active in Mizoram and not an unlawful· organisation. F

Government of India denied the allegations of 'fake encounter', while
submitting that there was genuine cross firing between the police and the
activists of Hamar People's Convention during which these two deaths
took place as Hamar Peoples' Convention was indulging in illegal and G
terrorist activities and in acts disturbing the public order.

An enquiry into the alleged incident conducted by a District and
Sessions Judge on directions of this Court reported that 'there was no
encounter in that night and the two deceased were shot dead by the police
while in custody.' H
923
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.
A The State of Manipur ·submitted that Manipur being a disturbed
area, there were several terrorist groups operating in the State, Hamar
People's Convention being one of such terrorist organizations, indulging in
a number of crimes affecting the public order, affecting the security of the
State; there had been regular. encounters and exchange of fire between
B police and terrorist on number of occasions and a number of citizens had
suffered at the hands of terrorists and many people had been killed; that
information was received by the 110Iice that terrorists were gathering in a
house on that night and when police conducted the raid, there was excfomge
of fire resulting in the death of the terrorists.

C Disposing of the writ petiti.on, this Court

HELD: 1.1. There were no reasons for not accepting the report of the
District and Sessions Judge that the two deceased persons were taken into
police custody, taken in a truck to a long distance away and shot there.
[927-DJ
D
1.2. It is true that Manipnr is a disturbed area, that there appears to ~ ._
be a good amount of terrorist activity affecting public orde.r and, may be,
even security of that State. It may also be that under these conditions,
certain additional and unusual powers have to be given to the police to deal
E with terrorism. It may be necessary to fight terrorism with a strong hand
which may involve vesting of good amount of discretion in the police officers
or other para-military forces engaged in fighting them. If the version of the
police with respect to the incident in question were true, there could have
been no question of any interference by court. Nobody can say that the
police should wait till they arc shot at. It is for the force on the spot to
F decide when to act, how to act and where t11 act. It is not for the court to say
how the terrorists should be fought. Even after fifty years of our inde-
pendence, our territorial integrity is not fully secure. There are several
types of separatist and terrorist activities in several parts of the country.
They have tu he subdued. Whether they should be fought politically or be
G dealt. with by force is a matter of policy for the government to determine.
The courts may not be the appropriate forum to determine those question.
.
'
~

All this is beyond dispute. But the present case appear to be one where two
persons along with some others were just seized from a hut, taken to a long
distance away in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot cer-
tainly be countenanced by the courts even in the case of disturbed areas. If
H the police had information that terrorists were gathering at a particular

\
_(
_

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.O.L 925

place and if they had surprised them and arrested them, the proper course A
__ ,,,__ for them was to deal with them according to law. "Administrative liquida·
tion" was certainly not a course open to them. [928-A-F]
.. 1.3. Award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only)
to the families of each of the deceased would be appropriate and just. The
same shall be paid by the Government of Manipur. [934-H] B
2. The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Politi-
-> cal 1966, which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights
guaranteed by our Constitution, can certainly be relied upon by courts as
facets of those fundamental rights and hence, enforceable as such. So far
as multi-lateral treaties are concerned, the law is, of course, different - and_
c
definite. [931-E]

Challa Ramkonda Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.l.R.
(1989) A.P. 235, approved.
D
Maharaj v. Attomey General of Trinidad and Tobago, (1978) 2 All.
E.R. 670

Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors., [1993} 2
S.C.C. 746 and D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 9 SCALE 2~'8,
relied on E
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh, (1995) .69
Australian Law Journal 423; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] 3
S.C.C. 1; Elisa Chan v. Korean Airlines Limited, 104 L.Ed. 2d. 113; Eastem
Airlines v. Floyd, 113 L.Ed. 2d. 569 and R. v. Secretary of State for Employ-
)( ment, Ex-parte Equal Opportunities Commission, (1994) I.C.R. 317 ""' (1994) F
1 All. E.R. 910, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 612
of 1992.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. G

Rajinder Sachhar, Sanjay Parikh, Adv. for the Petitioner.

Ashok K. Srivastava for Respondent No. 1.

Ms. S. Janani for Respondent No. 2. H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 1 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. People's Union of Civil Liberties has filed
this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance .....
of a writ of. mandamus or other appropriate order or direction (I) to
B institute a judicial inquiry into the fake encounter by Imphal police on
April 3, 1991 in which two persons of Lunthilian village were killed, (2) to
direct appropriate action to be taken against the erring police officials and
(3) to award compensation to the members of the families of the deceased.
According to the petitioner, there was in truth no encounter but it was a
C case where certain villagers were caught by the police during the night of
April 3, 1991, taken in a truck to a distant place and two of them killed
there. It is alleged that three other persons who were also caught and taken
away along with two deceased persons were kept in police custody for a
number of days and taken to Mizoram. They were released on bail only on
July 22. 1991. It is further submitted that Hamar Peoples' Convention is a
D political party activein Mizoram. It is not an unlawful organization. Even
according to the news released by the said organization, it was a case of
deliberate killing. Though representations were made to the Chief Minister
of Manipur and other officials, no action was taken. Along with the writ
petition, affidavit of the persons who were taken into custody along with
E the deceased, taken in a truck and kept in custody for a number of days.
were filed. Affidavits of the wives of the deceased were also filed setting
out the miserable condition of their families after the death of their
respective husbands.

p On notice being given, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Joint
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur denying the allegations. The
allegation of 'fake encounter' was denied: It was submitted that there was
genuine cross firing between the police and the activists of Hamar Peoples'
Conventii:m during which the said two deaths took place. The report of the
Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur was relied upon in support of
G the said a~erment. It was submitted that Hamar Peoples' Convention was
indulging in illegal and terrorist activities and in acts disturbing the public
order. Particulars of several F.l.Rs. issued in respect of crimes committed
by them under different police stations in that area were set out. The truth
and correctness of the supporting affidavits was also disputed. Along with
H the counter-affidavit, copies of post-mortem reports were filed.
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.O.l. (B.P. JEEVANREDDY, J.] 927

After hearing the counsel for both the parties, this Court directed, A
by its order dated May 30, 1995, that the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Churachandpur shall make an inquiry into the alleged incident and
submit his report as to what exactly happened on that day. Subsequently,
that inquiry was entrusted to learned District and Sessions. Judge, Manipur
(West) who has submitted his report dated April 8, 1996. The learned B
District and Sessions Judge ha~ concluded that "there was no encounter in
the night between 3-4-1991 and 4-4-1991 at Nungthulien village. The two
deceased, namely. Lalbeiklien and Saikaplien were shot dead by the police
while in custody on 4-4-1991". The State of Manipur has filed its objections
to the report along with certain documents which according to them
purport to disprove the correctness of finding recorded by the learned C ·
District and Sessions Judge.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied that
there are any reasons for not accepting the report of the learned District
and Sessions Judge which means that the said two deceased persons were D
taken into custody on the night of April 3, 1991, taken in a truck to a long
distance away and shot there. The question is what are the reliefs that
should be granted in this writ petition?

It is submitted by Ms. S. Janani, learned counsel for the State of
Manipur, that Manipur is a disturbed area, that there are several terrorist E
groups operating in the State, that Hamar Peoples' Convention is one of.
such terrorist organizations, that they have been indulging in a number of
crimes affecting the public order -indeed, affecting the security of the State.
It is submitted that there have been regular encounters and exchange of
fire between police and terrorists on number of occa~ions. A number of p
citizens have suffered at the hands of terrorists and many people have been
killed. The situation is not a normal one. Information was received by the
police that terrorist~ were gathering in the house on that night and on the
basis of that information, police conducted the raid. The raiding party was
fortunate that the people inside the house including the deceased did not
notice the police, in which case the police would have suffered serious G
casualties. The police party was successful in surprising the terrorists.
There was exchange of fire resulting in the death of the terrorists.

In view of the fact that we have excepted the finding recorded by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, it is not possible to accede to the H
.,
J-
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A contention of Ms. Janani insofar as the manner in which the incident had
taken place. It is true that Manipur is a disturbed area, that there appears
to be a good amount of terrorist activity affecting public order and, may
be, even security of that State. It may also be that under these conditions,
certain additional and unusual powers have to be given to the police to
deal with terrorism. It may be necessary to fight terrorism with a strong
--
B
hand which may involve vesting of good amount of discretion in the police
officers or other para-military forces engaged in fighting them. ·If the
version of the police with respect to the incident in question were true,
· there could have beeri no question of any interference by court. Nobody
can say that ihe police should wait till they are shot at. It is for the force
C on the spot lo decide when to act, how to act and where to act. It is not
for the court to say how the terrorists should be fought. We cannot be blind
to the fact that even after fifty years of our independence, our territorial
integrity is not fully secure. There are several types of separatist and
terrorist activities in several parts of the country. They have to be subdued.
D Whether they should be fought politically or be dealt with by force is a ,..._
matter of policy, for the government to determine. The courts may not be (

the appropriate forum to determine those questions. All this is beyond
dispute. But the present case appears to be one where two persons along
with some others were just seized from a hut, taken to a long distance away
in a truck and shot there. This type of activity cannot certainly be coun-
E tcnanced by the courts even in the case of disturbed areas. If the police
had information that terrorists were gathering at a particular place and if
they had surprised them and arrested them, the proper course for them
was to deal with them according to law: "Administrative liquidation" was
certainly not a course open to them.
F
Sri Rajinder Sachhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
in view of the findings of the learned District and Sessions Judge, this is a
proper case where this Court should order the prosecution of the con-
cerned police officials and also award compensation to the families of the
deceased. ,
G
In Challa Ramkonda Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.LR.
(1989) A.P. 235, a decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court, one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) dealt with the liability of the
State where it deprives a citizen of his right to life guar:inteed by Article
H 21. It was held, "(I)n our opinion, the right to life and liberty guaranteed
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.0.1. [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 929

by Article 21 is so fundamental and basic that no compromise is possible A
with this right. It is 'non- negotiable' .......The State has no right to take any
action which will deprive a citizen of the enjoyment of this basic right
except in accordance with a law which is reasonable, fair and just": Tlie
decision also dealt with the question whether the plea of sovereign im-
munity is available in such a case. The following observations are relevant:
B
"The question, however, arises whether· it is open to the State to
deprive a citizen of his life and liberty otherwise than in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by law and yet' claim an immunity
on the ground that the said deprivation of life occurred while the
officers of the State were exercising the sovereign power of the C
State? ....... Can the fundamental right to life guaranteed by Art. 21
be defeated by pleading the archaic defence of sovereign func-
tions? Does it mean that the said theory clothes the State with the
right to violate the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed
by Art. 21? In other words, does the said concept constitute an D
exception to Art.21? We think not. Article 21 does not recognize
any exception, and no such exception can be read into it by
reference to Cl. (l) of Art. 300. Where a citizen has been deprived
of his life, or liberty, otherwi~e than in accordance with the pro-
cedure prescribed by law, it is no answer to say that the said
deprivation was brought about while the officials of the State were E
acting in discharge of the sovereign functions of the State."

Reliance was placed in the said decision upon the decision of the
Privy Council in Maharaj v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,
(1978) 2 All. E.R. 670. After setting out the relevant provisions of the F
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, it was pointed out that Section (1) of
that Constitution corresponds inter alia to Section 21 of our Constitution,
while Sections 2 and Section 6 of that Constitution correspond to Articles
13 and 32/226 of our Constitution. Applying the reasoning of the Privy
.Council, it was held by the High Court:
G
"The fundamental rights are sacrosanct. They have been variously·
described as basic, inalienable and indefeasible. The founding:
fathers incorporated the 'exceptions in the Articles themselves-
wherevcr they were found advisable, or appropriate. No such
exception has been incorporated in Art. 21, and we are not H
_}.
930 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] lS.C.R.

A prepared to read the archaic concept of immunity of sovereign
functions, incorporated in Art.300( 1), as an exception to Art.21.
True it is that the Constitution must be read as an integrated whole;
but, since the right guaranteed by Art.21 is too fundamental and
basic to admit of any compromise, we are not prepared to read
any exception in to it by a process of interpretation. We must
-
B presume that, if the' founding fathers intended to provide any
exception, they would have said so specifically in Part-III itself."

In Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera v. State of orissa and Ors., [1993]
2 S.C.C. 746, this Court [J.S. Verma, Dr. AS. Anand and N. Venkatachala,
C JJ.] held that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by
the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the High Court is a remedy
available in public law based on strict liability for contravention of fun-
damental rights. It is held that the defence of sovereign-immunity does not
apply in such a case even though it may be available as a defence in private
law in an action based on tort. It is held further that the award of damages
D by the Supreme Court or the High Court in a writ proceeding is distinct · +•
. from and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages. It is one
mode of enforcing the fundamental rights by this Court or-High Court.
Reliance is placed upon Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, 1966 which say. "anyone who has been the victim of
E unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensa-
tion". The two opinions rendered by J.S. Verma, J. and Dr. AS. Anand, J.
are unanimous on the aforesaid dicta. The same view has been reiterated
very recently by a Bench comprising Kuldip Singh and Dr. AS. Anand, JJ.
in D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, [1996] 9 SCALE 298. The observations
F · in Para 56 of the judgment are apposite and may be quoted:

"Thus to sum up, it is now a well accepted proposition in most of
the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an
appropriate and indeed an effective and sometime perhaps the
ody suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement
G of the_ fundamental right of life of a citizen by the public servants
and the State is victoriously liable for their acts: The claim of the
"' citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the -
defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must
receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall
H have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assess-
PEOPLE'SUNIONFORCIVILLIBERTIESv. U.O.l. [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 931

ment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory A
and not on punitive element. The objective is to app,1.y balm to
the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender,
as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespec-
tive of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in
which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty B
bound to do. The award of compensation_ in the public law
jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like
civil suit for damage which is lawfully available to the Victim or
the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same matter
for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State.
The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the C
peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be
evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the
established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizens,
under the public law jurisdiction is, thus; in addition to the
traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount D
of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State
to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted
against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by
·,
way of damages in a civil suit:"

The reference to and reliance upon Article 9(5) of the International E
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 in Nilabati Behera raises an
interesting question; viz:, to what extent can the provisions of such of
international covenants/conventions be read into national laws. This issue
has been the subject-matter of a recent decision in Australia, viz., Minister
for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) 69 Australian Law F
Journal 423. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
was ratified by the Commonwealth Executive in December 1990 and had
force in Australia from January 16, 1991 pursuant to a declaration made,
on December 22, 1992, by the Attorney General pursuant to Section
47(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act,
1986 to the effect that the said convention is an international instrument G
relating to human rights, Respondent Teoh, a Malaysian citizen was
found to have imported and be in possession of heroin, for which he
was convicted. A deportation order was passed on that basis. The
Immigration Review Panel opined that deportation of Teoh would
deprive his young children (who were Australian citizens) of their only H
\
}-

932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A financial support, landing them in bleak mtSery. Article 3 of the aforesaid
Convention provides that "1. In all actions concerning children, whether
undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law,
administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the
child shall be a primary consideration". Teoh invoked this Article to ward
off his deportaticm. The matter was carried to High Court where the
B
question of eJ?forceability of the Convention by the national courts was
thoroughly debated. Mason, CJ., speaking for himself and Dean, J., stated
the position in the following words:

"It is well established that the provisions of an international treaty
c to which Australia is a party do no form part of Australian law
unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our
municipal law by statute. (Chow Hung Citing v. The King, (1948)
77 CLR 449 at 478; Bradley v. The Commonwealth, (1973) 128 CLR
557 at 582; Simsek v. Macphee , (1982) 148 CLR 636 at 641-642;
Koowarta v. Bjelke-Petersen, (1982) 153 CLR 168 at 211- 212,
D
224-225; Kioa v. West, (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 570; Diet1ich v. The
Queen, (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 305; J.H. Rayner Ltd. v. Dept. of
Trade, (19.90) 2 AC 418 at 500. This principle has its foundation in
the proposition that in our constitutional system the making and
ratification of treaties fall within the province of the Executive in
E the exercise of its prerogative power whereas the making and the
alteration of the law fall within the province of Parliament, not the
Executive. Simsek v. Macphee, (1982) 148 CLR at 641-642; So, a
treaty which has not been incorporated into our municipal law
cannot operate as a direct source of individual rights and obliga-
tions under that law. In this case, it is Common ground that the
F
provisions of the Convention have not been incorporated in this
way. It is not suggested that the declaration made pursuant to
s.47(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Act has this effect.

G
But the fact that the Convention has not been incorporated into
Australian law does not mean that its ratification holds no sig- ·
nificance for Australian law. Where a statute or subordinate legis-
lation is ambiguous, the courts should favour that construction
which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty or inter-
H national convention to which Australia is a party (Chu Kheng Lim

I
I
-{

,. PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.O.l. [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 933

v. Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 38), at least in A
those cases in which the legislation is enacted after, or contempla-
tion of, entry into, or ratification of, the relevant international
instrument. That is because Parliament, prima f acie, intends to give
effect to Australia's obligations under international law.

It is a;:cepted that a statute is to be interpreted and applied, B
as far as its language permits, so that it is in conformity and not
in conflict with the established rules of international law Polites v.
- >-- 17ie Commonwealth, (1945) 70 CLR 60 at 68-69; 77, 80- 81) .......

· Apart from influencing the construction of a statute or subor-
dinate legislation, an international convention may play a part in c
the development by the courts of the common law. The provisions
of an international convention to which Australia is a party, espe-
cially one which declares universal fundamental rights, may be used
by the courts as a legitimate guide in developing the common law

..... Mabo v. Queensland No.2, (1991) 175 CLR 1 at 42, per Brennan, D
J. (with whom Mason 0 and McHugh J. agreed); Dietrich v. T71e
Queen; (1992) 177 CLR, at 321, per Brennan.J.; at 360, per Toohey
J; Jago v. District Court of New South Wales ,(1988) 12 NSWLR
558 at 569, per Kirby P; Derbyshire County Council v. Times
Newspapers Ltd., (1992) QB 770.) But the courts should act in this
fashion with due circumspection when the Parliament itself has not E
seen fit to incorporate the provisions of a convention into our
domestic law. .Judicial development of the common law must not
be seen as a backdoor means of importing an unincorporated
convention into Australian law. A cautious approach to the
development of the common law by reference to international
conventions would be consistent with the approach which the F
courts have hitherto adopted to the development of the common
law by reference to statutory policy and statutory materials (Lamb
v. Cologne, (1987) 164 CLR 1 at 11- 12). Much will depend upon
the nature of relevant provision, the extent to which it has been
accepted by the international community, the purpose which it is G
intended to serve and its relationship to the existing principles of
our domestic law."
.........
Toohey, J. and Gaudron, .J. broadly concurred with the above
"' opinion. Toohey, J. spoke of such Conventions giving rise to legitimate
expectation among the people that the Executive will honour the commit- H

r
\
. }-

934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R.
A ment while taking any action concerning children while Gaudron, J.
relegated the convention to a subsidiary position vis-a-vis Australian statute
law. (McHugh, J. di:;sented altogether).

The main criticism against reading such conventions and covenants into
national laws is one pointed out by Mason, CJ. himself, viz., the ratification of
B these conventions and covenants is done in most of the countries by the
Executive acting alone and that the prerogative of making the law is that of
the Parliament alone; unless the Parliament legislates, no law can come into
existence. It is not clear whether our Parliament has approved the action of
the Government of India ratifying the said 1966 Covenant indeed it appears
C that at the time of ratification of the said Covenant in 1979, the Government
of India had made a specific reservation to the effect that the Indian legal
system does not recogni7..e a right to compensation for victims· of unlawful
arrest or detention. This reservation has, of course, been held to be of little
relevance now in view of the decision in Nilabati Behera - See Page 313 Para
43 in D.K. Basu. Assuming that it has, the question may yet arise whether such
D approval can be equated to legislation and invests the covenant with the
sanctity of law made by Parliament. As pointed out by this Court in S.R.
Bommai v. Union of India, [1994) 3 S.C.C. 1, every action of Parliament
cannot be equated to legislation. Legislation is no doubt that main
function of the Parliament but it also performs many other functions all
of which do not amount to legislation. In our opinion, this aspect
E requires deeper scrutiny than has been possible in this case. For the
present, it would suffice to state that the provisions of the covenant,
which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed
by our Constitution, can certainly be relied upon by courts as facets of
those fundamental rights and hence enforceable as such. So far as
F multi-lateral treaties are concerned, the law is, of course, different - and
definite. See United States Supreme Court decisions in Elisa Chan v.
Korean Airlines Limited, 104 L.Ed. 2d. 113 and Eastern Airlines v. Floyd,
113 L.Ed. 2d. 569 and the House of Lords decision in R. v. Secretary of
State for Employment, Ex-parte Equal Opportunities Commission, (1994)
I.C.R. 317 = (1994) 1 All. E.R. 910 following its earlier decisions, including
G Factorta1;1e No. 2 (1991) 1 A.C. 603.

' Now coming to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that
award of compensation cif Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) to the
families of each of the deceased would be appropriate and just. The
H same shall be. paid by the Government of Manipur. The Collector/Dis-
I
-(
PEOPLE'S UMON FOR CNIL LIBERTIES v. U.0.1. [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 935

trict Magistrate, Churachandpur shall hand over the cheques to the respec- A
tive families of the deceased, namely Lalbeiklien and Saikaplien, within two
months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The
People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has filed this writ petition and
pursued it all these years shall be entitled to its costs, assessed at Rs. 10,000
(Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the State of Manipur within the B
same period. •
->, R.A. Petition disposed of.