Guwahati: The Supreme Court has issued a notice on the Meghalaya government’s petition challenging a Meghalaya High Court order that set varying levels of punitive compensation for custodial deaths based on the age of the victim.
A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta stayed the Meghalaya High Court’s judgment but ordered the state to pay compensation determined by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The High Court initiated a suo motu public interest litigation following a Supreme Court direction in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.
This litigation aimed to identify the next of kin of prisoners who died unnatural deaths in state custody between 2012 and 2015, as revealed by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), and award suitable compensation.
During the proceedings, it emerged that 53 custodial deaths had occurred in Meghalaya since 2012, with 25 attributed to natural causes and the remaining 28 deemed unnatural.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
In May 2022, the NHRC recommended that all states and union territories frame a policy for compensating victims and their families in cases of custodial violence and death.
Following this recommendation, the Meghalaya government published a notification in December 2022 setting the compensation amount for unnatural custodial deaths based on the cause of death.
The amount was Rs. 7.5 lakhs for deaths due to quarrels among prisoners or torture/beating by police/prison staff, and Rs. 5 lakhs for deaths due to accidents, medical/para-medical negligence, or suicide.
Finding this compensation inadequate, the High Court set aside the notification and issued its own order. The High Court directed the state government to pay Rs. 15 lakhs to the next of kin of victims below 30 years of age, Rs. 12 lakhs for those between 30 and 45 years old, and Rs. 10 lakhs for those above 45 years old.
The state challenged this in the Supreme Court, which issued the current notice.