Effective part of Calcutta High Court Order in AST 205 of 2007,
"For the reasons stated above we hold that :
1. The action of the police department to openfire at Nandigram on 14.03.07 was whollyunconstitutional and can not be justified under anyprovision of the law.
2. The Court was justified in taking suo motunotice of the wholly indefensible incident of policefiring at Nandigram on 14.03.07, on the basis of theNewspaper reports; and the statement made by hisExcellency, the Governor of West Bengal as reported inthe newspaper Hindustan Times
Advertisement
3. The PIL instituted by the Bas Associationof High Court, Calcutta and the other petitions aremaintainable.
4. This Court in exercise of its jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India wouldhave the power to direct the CBI to hold enquiry inany particular case or matter, Consent of the StateGovernment under Section 6 of the Delhi SpecialEstablishment Act, 1946 would not be required, whenthe order for CBI enquiry is passed by the High Courtin exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227of the Constitution of India. Till the reference tothe Larger Bench in Civil Appeal Nos. 6249-6250 of2001 is decided this Court in bound by the law asalready declared by the Supreme Court in the case ofSampat Lal & Ors. (supra). Even otherwise in thiscase consent has been given by the Chief Minister inthe statement made in the West Bengal StateLegislative Assembly on 15 th of March, 2007.Therefore, the objection raised by the AdvocateGeneral is not maintainable.
Advertisement
5. The action of the police cannot beprotected or justified on the ground of sovereignimmunity.
6. The action of the police cannot bejustified even under the provisions of CriminalProcedure Code; The Police Act, 1861 or The PoliceRegulations, 1943.
7. Regulation 155(b) is ultra vires Articles14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
14 innocent persons have been killed inthe police firing on 14 th of March, 2007. As statedby us in the preceding paragraphs herein above 13persons who have died as a result of indiscriminatepolice firing have actually been identified. Eventhier addresses have been given in the earlier part ofthe judgment. Only the 14 th person who died has notbeen identified. 162 persons have been injured.Details of 80 such persons have been given in theaffidavit filed by the petitioners. We have alsonoticed above the details of some of the women who hadbeen raped. We therefore, direct the State of WestBengal to pay immediate compensation to the relationsof the victims who have died or were injured and thevictims of rape as follows:
In Civil Writ Petition No. 859 (W) of2007, the prayer of the petitioners is to pay adequatecompensation to the victims of police firing on 14 thof March 2007, in view of the acts of omission andcommission on the part of the State Government and itsofficers and its failure to protect the people ofNandigram and its surrounding areas. The petitionershave claimed compensation at the rate not less thatRs. 10 (ten) lakhs to the families of each of thosewho were killed. No figure has been mentioned withregard to the injured persons. However, a prayer hasbeen made for payment of compensation, which shall notbe less that Rs. 8 (eight) lakhs in case of rapevictims and adequate compensation in other cases ofmolestation and sexual assoult. Following theguidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the caseof Peoples' Union For Democratic Rights (supra), (I)we direct the State of West Bengal to pay to thevictims of the deceased as a result of theindiscriminate police firing on 14 th of March, 2007immediate compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 (five)lakhs each.
Advertisement
(2) We further direct the StateGovernment to pay immediate compensation to thepersons who were injured and whose particulars havebeen given in the pleadings sum of Rs. not less that 1(one) lakh each.
(3) We further direct the StateGovernment to pay compensation to the victims of rapewho have been duly identified in the pleadings a sumof Rs. 2 (two) lakhs each.
We make it clear that the compensationawarded above is without prejudice to the legal rightsof the victims to claim higher compensation by takingproceedings in accordance with law. The payments shallbe made within a period of one (1) month from today.
Advertisement
During the course of hearing of thesematters interim directions had been given on a numberof occasions. It was, however, brought to the noticeof this Court that the State Government had miserablefailed to carry out the directions. Even in caseswhere the directions were implemented it was done in amanner which resulted in little benefit to the segmentof the population which was sought to be benefited.We, therefore, direct the State Government toimplement all the directions issued by this Court on15 th of March, 2007, 2nd of May, 2007 and 3rd of May,2007
In view of the clear enunciation of law as noticedabove, we have no hesitation in directing the CBI tocontinue with inquiry as directed by the order dated15 th of March, 2007. The CBI is directed to conduct athorough and detailed investigation and submit acomprehensive report to this Court. The report shouldinter alia clearly set out the crimes that have beencommitted against any individual; the victims shouldbe identified; the offenders should likewise beidentified. Thereafter, the report should set out asto whether any departmental action or criminalproceedings have been intitiated against anyindividual or officer(s) who have transgressed anyprovision of law. The CBI is further directed to takenecessary steps before the appropriate forum/Court ofLaw, if necessary i.e, registration an initiation ofCriminal proceedings, if necessary, in accordance withlaw.
Advertisement
We further make it clear that all these steps shouldbe taken by the CBI including such investigation andthe filing of such report within a period of a monthfrom date. These directions shall be in continuationof the directions given on the earlier occasions.
sd/-
(S. S. NIJJAR, C.J.)
I agree. sd/-
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSH, J.)Later:
At this stage learned Advocate General hasmade a prayer that the operation of the judgmentshould be stayed for a period of three weeks. We findno reason to stay the operation of the order. We,therefore, decline the prayer.
Advertisement
Let a xerox plain copy of this judgment and order dulycountersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) begiven to the learned Advocate General, Mr. Sakti NathMukherjee, Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Mr. Amjad Ali, Mr.Idris Ali and Mr. Ranjan Roy, learned counsel for theparties on usual undertaking.
sd/-
(S. S. NIJJAR, C.J.)
sd/-
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSH, J.)"
