Holding

The Supreme Court cannot extend the Delhi High Court's compensation order to other states and therefore transferred the petition to the appropriate High Courts.

Summary

Following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, communal riots resulted in the deaths of thousands of Sikhs across several states. The Delhi High Court awarded compensation to the dependents of those killed in Delhi, invoking the expanded interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. A writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking to extend that compensation order to the entire country. The Supreme Court held that extending the Delhi High Court's decision to all states would require a detailed fact‑finding exercise that the Court could not undertake. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petition be transferred to the respective High Courts of each state for adjudication, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can extend a compensation order passed by the Delhi High Court to victims in other states under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution.
Whether the Supreme Court can adjudicate the varied factual circumstances of riots in each state without detailed examination.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32

Subjects

CompensationRiotsArticle 21Article 32Supreme CourtHigh CourtTransfer of jurisdictionState liabilityHuman rights

Judgment

A S.S. AHLUWALIA ~

V. ~
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 16, 2001

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 : i\rticles 21 and 32.

C'ompensation-Riot victirrts-Sikhs in Delhi and other parls of count1y
killed in the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister-Delhi High
c Court granted compensation to the dependents of those killed in the 1?ots after
the assassination-W1it petition filed in Supreme Courl seeking to extend the
benefit of the said High Court judgment to the entire count1y-Held: Jn the
nature of the circumstances of the case, it is very d{[ficult to extend the decision
of the High Court to all the States without detailed examination-High Cou11s
of respective States to deal with the matter-Hence, lVrit petition transferred to
D
High Courts of respective States.
In the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister, many
Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of the country were killed. The Delhi High
Court granted compensation to the dependant• of those killed in the riol'
E
after the assassination. The present writ petition seeks to extend the hen- ..,
efit of the judgment of the Delhi High Court to the entire country.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD : 1. In the nature of the circumstances of the case, it is very
difficult for this Court to extend the decision of the Delhi High Court to all
F the States without making a detailed examination of the circumstances
arising in each case. Such examination cannot he done by this Court.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the High Courts to deal with ''If
the matter in respect of the allegations made in thi• writ petition in respect
of the State falling in its jurisdiction by treating this writ petition as a
petition tiled in that High Court. These proceedings, therefore, shall stand
G transferred to the respective High Courts. [470-D-G]
Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi i\dministration, CWP No. 1429 of 1996 decided
on 5- 7-1996, referred to. .,..
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : W1it Petition (C) No. 232 of
H 1997.
468
S.S. AHLUWALIA v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 469

.... Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. A

" Mnkul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Vijay Panjwani, Y.P.
Mahajan, Hemani Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Kail ash Vasdev, S. Vanna, Mrs.
H. Wahi, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Ms. Madhur Dadlani, S.K. Agnihotri, Ms. Binu
Tarnta, D.S. Mehra, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Ameeta V. Duggal, T. Sridharan, S.S.
Shinde, S.V. Deshpande, R.C. Verma, C. Sidharth, Brijender Chahar, Ashok B
Mathur, Ms. A. Subhashini, H.S. Parihar, K.S. Parihar, Anil Srivastava, B.B.
Singh, K.R. Nagaraja, K.S. Bhati, R.S. Jena, J.S. Attri, R.S. Sodhi, Ashol K.
Srivastava, Rajiv Mehta, Prem Nath Malhotra, K.H. Nobin Singh, Ms. Malini
Poduval and D.M. Nargolkar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
RAJENDRA BABU, J. In the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira
Gandhi on October 31, 1984 there were several killings of Sikhs in Delhi and
other parts of the country between October 31, 1984 till November 1984
which involved arson, looting and murder. A Committee was constituted D
headed by Justice R.N: Misra of this Court which made an inquiry and
reported that Sikhs killed in those riots were 3874 in Delhi , 127 in Kanpur
and 69 in Bokaro. Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 titled Bhajan Kaur
v. Delhi Administration was filed in the High Court of Delhi for paying
compensation to the dependents of those killed in the riots after the assas-
sination of Smt. Indira Gandhi as the State had a duty to protect the life of E
its citizens and the State ought to pay compensation thereof. The High Ccurt
of Delhi by its order dated July 5, 1996 held that in the expanded meaning
attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution it is the duty of the State to create
a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste
and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their F
life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopard-
ised or endangered. If in any circumstance the State is not able to do so, then
'I
it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person
killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, directed payment
G
of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that
this direction should apply to similar cases also. Thereafter, this writ petition
has been filed seeking to extend the benefit of the judgment in Bhajan Kaur
• v. Delhi Administration (supra) to the entire country and for certain other
"' reliefs. It is brought to our notice that the number of persons killed in each
of the States is as under: H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.

A Nos.
Killed
3874
1
-
Delhi
State

Rajasthan
-f
'
-
3 Orissa
B 106 Haryana
2 Himachal Pradesh
120 Bihar
98 M.P.
260 Uttar Pradesh
9 Maharashtra
c 4473

Certain amounts have been paid to some of the dependents of those killed.

Certain claims have been made in para 13.3 of this writ petition setting
ant certain facts which need to be verified. After this petition was filed notices
D were issued to the Governments of different States and they have filed
responses in each one of those cases stating the steps that have been taken
by them· in cases where there had been death' ?r other kinds of violence
resulting in injuries or loss of property. But in the nature of the circumstances
of the case, it is very difficult for us to extend the decision of the High Court
E of Delhi in Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi AdministraJion (supra) to all the States
without making a detailed examination of the circumstances arising in each
.,
case. Such examination cannot be done by us. Therefore, it would be
appropriate for us to direct the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa,
Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Patna, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad,
and Bombay in the State.s of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa, Haryana, Himachal
F
Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa to deal
with the matter in respect of the allegations made herein in respect of the State
't'
falling in its jurisdiction by treating this writ petition as a petition filed in
that High Court. These proceedings, therefore, shall stand transferred to the
respective High Courts. A copy of the petition with Annexures and response
G of the respective State Governments shall be sent to the High Court for
appropriate action.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. •
'JI'
V.S.S. Petition disposed of.
H
,.