BHIM SINGH, MLA VS STATE OF JUMMU &

KASHMIR (AIR 1986 SC 494)

Case study of research methodology

DAMINEE SHARMA
LL.M (CORPORATE LAW)
SEM- I
INTRODUCTION:

Bhim singh v. State of J&K is one of the landmark judgement under Indian constitution. But this
case also has many other layers in the field of legal history as it is refer in many other situation. It
is one of the highly discussed case in law of tort and used to explain maxim injuria sine damno
which is related to damage. This case also has great jurisprudential aspect due to which, this case
is considered provital for India’s legal history

In this case petitioner was an MLA of Jammu &Kashmir assembly was wrongfully detained by
the police while he was going to attend assembly session. He was not produced before the
magistrate with in requisite time. As the consequences of which the member was deprived of
constitutional right to attend assembly session. There is violation of fundamental right to personal
liberty under article 21 of Indian constitution.

PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

Bhim Singh, MLA ………..Appellant

Vs

State of Jammu & Kashmir …………Respondent

FACTS OF THE CASE

On August 17, 1985 Bhim Singh was suspended from the opening of the budget session of the
Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly that was scheduled for September 11. He subsequently
challenged the suspension in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

After his suspension was stayed by High Court on September 9, Bhim Singh left Jammu for
Srinagar to attend the Legislative Assembly session. On route at 3:00 am on September 10, he was
intercepted by the police at Qazi Kund, 70 km from Srinagar. He was taken away by the police
and kept prisoner at an undisclosed location.

1|Page
After attempts to locate him proved futile his wife and advocate Jayamala then moved the court
to locate Bhim Singh. On September 13, the court ordered the inspector general of the police to
inform Jayamala where her husband was being held in custody.

Only after this was Bhim Singh brought before a magistrate for the first time on September 14.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PARTY

Bhim Singh contended that there is violation of his fundamental right under Article-21 and Article-
22 of Indian constitution and also police not done their duty properly. Due to which there is both
physical injury cause to him as he had left jail with a fractured leg and claimed during his false
imprisonment the police and state agencies had made an attempt on his life and mental trauma
suffer by him and his family without any reasonable cause. Therefore he demanded exemplary
damage for his illegal detention and false imprisonment by the police.

The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement that impacted tort law in India, awarded Bhim Singh
a compensation of fifty thousand rupees for his illegal detention and false imprisonment by the
police.

JUDGEMENT:

According to court, it appears as if it was expected that Bhim Singh would proceed from Jammu
to Srinagar on the intervening night of 9-10 September, 1985 as there was a meeting of the
Assembly on 11th September and the police were alerted to arrest him when sighted in route to
Srinagar and take him back to prevent him from proceeding to Srinagar to attend the the session
of the Legislative Assembly.

In the case the court found statements by M.A. Mir, superintendent of police to be false, neither
could the superintendent explain why he expected Bhim Singh to travel through Qazi Kund on the
night of his arrest.

The court also found the lengthy affidavit filed by inspector general Khajuria contained statements
of facts that he could not possibly have been aware off. The court found that Bhim Singh was not
produced before the magistrate nor sub judge who issued the police orders of remand and that the

2|Page
police obtained the orders in surreptitious circumstances at the residence of the magistrate and
after hours from the sub judge.

The Supreme Court judge, O. Chinnappa Reddy criticized the conduct of the magistrate and sub
judge stating that they had no concern for the subject out of either casual behavior or worse that
they had potentially colluded with the police who had deliberately acted mala fide1.

The court ruled that there "certainly was a gross violation of Shri Bhim Singh's constitutional
rights" and condemned the "authoritarian acts of the police." The judges though stated that the
police were but minions and that they were in no doubt that the top levels of the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir where ultimately responsible.2

Court also consider that the Police Officers acted in a most high-handed way. Court do not wish
to use stronger words to condemn the authoritarian acts of the police. Judge further added if the
personal liberty of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this fashion, one
can only wonder what may happen to lesser moral Police Officers who are the custodians of law
and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout
the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness.

Court also stated that Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties.
Their duty is to protect and not to abduct.

However the two police officers, the one who arrested Bhim Singh and the one who obtained the
orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. Court not have the slightest
doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material
now before us.

Court have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity.
Court has right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs otherwise is now

1
Manupatra<http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=004891632000> (last visited August
10, 2017)
2
India kanoon <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1227505/>(last visited August10,2017)

3|Page
established by the decisions of this court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr3 and Sebestian
M. Hongray v. Union of India4.

When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with
mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the
mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free.
In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable
monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the
State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months
from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this court and paid to Shri Bhim
Singh.

ANALYSIS:

The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police is
deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law. In this case there is illegal
detention of the plaintiff which is violation of the fundamental right under Article -22. Under
Article-21 & Article-22(2) of the constitution there is violation of personal liberty of person by
police through obtaining remand of arrested person, not producing him before magistrate within
requisite time. There is gross violation of right under Article 21 and Article-22(2).

Under Article-21, Article-22(2) and Article-32 if there is arrest with mischievous and malicious
intent. Victim can be compensate by awarding suitable monetary compensation in appropriate
cases. Arrest of MLA while in route to seat of assembly which resultant in deprivation of right to
attend impending assembly session. It is fit case for compensating the victim by awarding
compensation of Rs 50000.

At last police officers who considered as custodian of law and order should have respect of the
personal liberty of person and should not flaunt laws by stooping to bizarre acts of lawlessness.

3
1983 (3) SCR 508
4
1984 AIR SC 1026

4|Page
CONCLUSION:
A fortiori, it is apt to reminisce that'' procedure in Article 21 means fair, not formal procedure.
Law is reasonable law, not any enacted piece. As Art. 22 specifically spells out the procedural
safeguards for preventive and punitive detention, a law providing for such detention should
conform to Art. 22. Therefore there is duty of government to respect the liberty of person and not
misuse the power which is entrusted to them.

This case is consider tortious constitutional case as it deals with both constitutional and tortious
aspect. After this case there is lot of changes in the detention process and judiciary and government
were become more alert so that this type of incidence will not happen again

5|Page