Analyzing the Nexus Between Custodial Deaths and Human Rights Violations in India

 Analytical Brief: Show Cause Notice Issued by NHRC - Case No. 12227/24/69/2021-ad

Summary: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in case number 12227/24/69/2021-ad. The case pertains to the alleged suicide of an inmate, Krishan Murari, in District Jail, Sonebhadra. The complainant, Lenin Raghuvanshi, and Mahendra Kharwal (the deceased's father), alleged negligence and foul play by the jail authorities. The NHRC, after conducting a thorough inquiry, has determined that the inmate's suicide was a result of negligence on the part of the jail administration.

Key Points:

1. Background and Allegations:

   • Lenin Raghuvanshi filed a complaint alleging that Krishan Murari, an inmate at District Jail, Sonebhadra, committed suicide by hanging himself with a gamcha (cloth) on 04/05/2021.
   • Mahendra Kharwal, the father of the deceased, lodged a similar complaint, claiming that his son had been murdered by the jail authorities in collusion with other inmates.

2. Investigation Findings:

   • The jail authority reported that Krishan Murari had requested permission to use the toilet and, after not returning, was found attempting suicide with a gamcha. He was taken to the jail hospital and later declared dead at the District Hospital.
   • A magisterial inquiry concluded that Krishan Murari had committed suicide due to fear of punishment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
   • The postmortem report confirmed death by hanging, with no other external injuries except a bruise mark on the neck.
   • Negligence on the part of the jail administration and specific jail warder Shrikant Yadav was noted.

3. Vicarious Liability and Compensation:

   • The NHRC emphasized that the jail administration's negligence led to the opportunity for the deceased to commit suicide.
   • The state's vicarious liability for the death of an individual in custody due to negligence was established.
   • Compensation was proposed under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as redressal for infringement of the fundamental right to life.

4. Legal Precedents and Constitutional Rights:

   • The NHRC cited legal precedents to justify the awarding of monetary compensation in cases of established infringement of fundamental rights.
   • The Commission highlighted the importance of sensitivity towards individuals in custody and the ongoing efforts to uphold Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.

5. Recommended Action:

   • The NHRC directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to show cause within eight weeks as to why a monetary compensation of Rs. Five Lakhs should not be recommended for the deceased's next of kin.
   • The matter is scheduled for review after eight weeks.

Conclusion: The NHRC's Show Cause Notice demonstrates a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances surrounding Krishan Murari's suicide in District Jail, Sonebhadra. The notice highlights the negligence of the jail administration, underscores the state's vicarious liability, and calls for compensation as a means of redressal. The NHRC's stance emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals in custody and sets a precedent for holding authorities accountable in such cases.

This analytical brief examines the case of Krishan Murari's alleged suicide in District Jail, Sonebhadra, as highlighted in the National Human Rights Commission's (NHRC) Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The SCN underscores the grave implications of custodial deaths on human rights, shedding light on negligence, systemic failures, and the potential violation of fundamental rights of inmates. The analysis delves into the broader context of custodial deaths in India and their correlation with human rights violations, emphasizing the need for enhanced safeguards and accountability measures.

Key Points:

1. Custodial Deaths and Negligence:

   • The SCN reveals how Krishan Murari's alleged suicide unveils a pattern of negligence within the custodial system, where a lack of supervision and proper protocols resulted in the tragic event.
   • Similar instances of custodial deaths have been reported across India, raising concerns about the adequacy of preventive measures and care for inmates.

2. Human Rights Violations in Custodial Settings:

   • The case study underscores the broader issue of human rights violations within custodial settings, including overcrowding, inadequate medical care, physical abuse, and lack of mental health support.
   • The NHRC's intervention highlights the obligation of the state to uphold the fundamental rights of individuals in custody, as enshrined in the Constitution.

3. Legal Framework and Accountability:

   • The analysis explores the legal framework governing custodial deaths, including the Protection of Human Rights Act, and the duty of the state to ensure the right to life and dignity of all individuals, including prisoners.
   • The SCN demonstrates the evolving role of the NHRC in holding authorities accountable for violations of human rights within custodial institutions.

4. Socio-Political Implications:

   • Custodial deaths expose systemic failures and reflect broader socio-political challenges, including the prevalence of corruption, lack of transparency, and deficiencies in law enforcement practices.
   • These incidents can erode public trust in the justice system and raise questions about the effectiveness of punitive measures.

5. Reform and Remediation:

   • The NHRC's recommendation for compensation serves as a potential avenue for redressal and recognition of the victim's rights.
   • The broader discussion calls for systemic reforms, including improved training for law enforcement personnel, enhanced monitoring mechanisms, and investment in mental health support for inmates.

6. International Comparisons and Best Practices:

   • The analysis draws parallels with international practices in custodial management and human rights protection, highlighting successful strategies and policies that promote inmate well-being and minimize the risk of custodial deaths.

Conclusion: The NHRC's Show Cause Notice serves as a microcosm of a larger issue – the nexus between custodial deaths and human rights violations in India. This case highlights the urgency of addressing systemic deficiencies and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights for all individuals in custody. The analysis underscores the imperative for comprehensive reforms and heightened accountability to prevent custodial deaths and uphold the dignity of every citizen, irrespective of their legal status.

From: <nhrc.india@nic.in>

Date: Tue, 8 Aug, 2023, 6:11 pm
Subject: Show Cause Notice Issued (SCN) - 12227/24/69/2021-ad
To: <cs-uttarpradesh@nic.in>, <csup@nic.in>
Cc: <cfr.pvchr@gmail.com>

Case No.- 12227/24/69/2021-ad

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

(LAW DIVISION)

* * *

MANAV ADHIKAR BHAWAN, BLOCK-C,

G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI- 110023

Fax No.: 011-24651332    Website: www.nhrc.nic.in

---

Date : 08/08/2023

To,

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH, 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 110, LALBAHADUR SASTRI BHAWAN, UTTAR PRADESH SECRETARIAT, LUCKNOW-226001 UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH Email- cs-uttarpradesh@nic.in,csup@nic.in

Sir/Madam,

The case No. 12227/24/69/2021-ad in respect of LENIN RAGHUVANSHI, was placed before the Commission on 18/07/2023. Upon perusing the same, the Commission directed as follows:

The Commission received a complaint dated 07.05.2021 from one Lenin Raghuvanshi alleging the death of a prisoner Krishan Murari, who committed suicide by hanging himself with the gamcha at District Jail, Sonebhadra. A similar complaint dated 13.05.2021 was also received from Mahendra Kharwal (father of the deceased) alleging that his son had committed suicide by hanging inside the jail on 04.05.2021. He had further alleged that the jail authority did not inform him about the death of his son and had been murdered by them in connivance with his opponents inside the jail. The complainant had sought the intervention of the Commission. The Commission had also received an intimation dated 04.05.2021 from the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonbhadra regarding the death of UTP Krishna Murari on 04.05.2021 who was lodged in jail since 23.12.2020 in case FIR No. 159/20. As per report the UTP Krishan Murari of barrack no. 16 had requested the Jail Warder for the toilet and Jail Warder provided two minutes time for toilet during closing of the barrack after lunch. Due to non-returning of UTP, Jail Warder went to the toilet and saw that the prisoner efforts to suicide with the help of gamcha in the toilet. The jail officials along with other inmates putted down the UTP from the toilet and immediately took him to jail hospital. After giving first aid, the UTP was referred and sent to the District Hospital for better treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctor on the same day. Further police report revealed that Jail Warder Shrikant Yadav was suspended due to his negligence and departmental enquiry was initiated against him in the matter. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death was opined “asphyxia due to hanging”. There were no external injury marks on the body of the deceased except for bruise mark on the neck of the deceased. The magisterial enquiry into the incident leading to the death of deceased Krishna Murari was conducted by Judicial Magistrate, District Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh. During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Magistrate examined the witnesses including jail officials, the father of the deceased and autopsy surgeon etc. and perused/ examined relevant records. The father of the deceased had raised suspicion in the death of his son. The Enquiry Magistrate after going through the records and testimonies, concluded that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself in the toilet with the help of his gamchha as the fear of being punished under the POCSO Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials placed on record, it remains a fact that the deceased committed suicide inside the jail’s toilet. It was incumbent on the jail authority to keep the inmate under surveillance so that due to psychological abnormality, the inmate could not be able to inflict self-harm leading to suicidal death. This was due to the negligence act of the jail administration that the deceased hanged himself inside the jail.  The success of efforts to prevent suicides in judicial custody depends on the abilities and willingness to identify the vulnerabilities of each prisoner, it needs to provide necessary supervision and support and offer alternative ways of coping and reducing emotional distress. The service of counsellors and support persons in jail custody to handle crisis situation and suicidal tendencies. But it appears nothing has been ensured in the judicial custody in question.  Therefore, the state or its machinery fails to discharge the vicarious liability under the law and, therefore, under these circumstances, the State cannot escape liability for the death of the person in police custody. Due to the negligence of the jail administration, the deceased got an opportunity to commit suicide by hanging himself.  For this lapse on the part of the jail authority, the State is vicariously liable. Moreover, as per relevant report, prima facie negligence was found on the part of jail warder Shrikant Yadav. Hence, the negligence contributed to the unfortunate incident while he was in their custody. While there is no expressed provision in the Constitution for grant of compensation, the right has been evolved through legislation namely Protection of Human Rights Act (in short PHR) and Section 18 of the Act provides in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal life, liberty or dignity, the Commission being a statutory authority is empowered to award monetary compensation at the end of the enquiry. It is true that the monetary or pecuniary compensation may not be only remedial measure but it is indeed  the effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the state is vicariously liable for their acts or actions.  Therefore, the claim of the citizens is based on the principles of strict liability to which the defence of soverign immunity may not be made available and in such case citizen or the NoK of the deceased so receive the amount of compensation from the state which shall be right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the case of “In re” inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons (2017                10 SCC 685) the Supreme Court held that the relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the additional remedies and not in derogation to them. It has also been pointed out that there must be a greater degree of sensitivity among those in authority with regard to the persons in custody and it has been the endeavour of the constitutional authorities to consistently flag this issue.  The results have been somewhat mixed but the efforts will continue as long as Article 21 remains in our Constitution. Therefore, Commission is of the view that this message goes out loud and clear as also the message that the dignity of the individual is not a plaything for those in authority. Therefore, it is a fit case considering the materials on record to issue a notice u/s 18 (a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Government of  Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary to show cause within eight weeks as to why a sum of Rs.Five Lakhs  as monetary compensation be not recommended by the Commission to be paid to the next of kin of the deceased Krishna Murari. List the matter after eight weeks.

2.     This is for your information and further necessary action.

Your’s faithfully Sd/- Mukesh DEPUTY REGISTRAR (LAW) DB-1 Section Ph. No. 011-24663317

Dairy of case with NHRC : https://www.scribd.com/document/663985563/Five-lakhs-compensation-in-case-of-custodial-death-by-NHRC

Five lakhs compensation in case of custodial death by NHRC by pvchr.india9214 on Scribd