The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ved Yadav vs State of NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that no citizen should be rendered remediless in case of commission of an offence or infringement of a fundamental right or availing compensation for injuries even as a prisoner.
Brief Facts:
This judgment examined the issue regarding payment of compensation and its quantum, to a convicted inmate of Tihar Jail who suffered injuries i.e., amputation of three fingers of the right hand while working in the factory of Tihar Jail.
The Petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to provide a functional prosthesis for the regular working of the amputated fingers of the right hand at state expense in Airmid Hospital or any other private hospital in which the said facility was available and to grant compensation for the loss suffered by him.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was not justified considering the injuries suffered by the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that Director General (Prisons) had awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the convict/Petitioner and the said amount had already been credited to his Prisoner Property Account.
Observations of the Court:
The grave issue that needed to be adjudicated upon by this Court was whether a prisoner was entitled to the same compensation and facility from the State in case he was a convict in a criminal case which he would have been entitled to in case he was not a convict.
In this case, medical aid was provided to the Petitioner, but he had to approach this Court after waiting for around 06 months since his application for being provided with compensation as well as functional prosthesis was not even looked into by the DG, Prison. Even thereafter, though this Court had directed to decide the application within 4 weeks, no action was taken.
This Court was informed by the State that since there was no facility providing prostheses in AIIMS, Delhi either a cosmetic glove could be provided or surgery was available at AIIMS, Delhi for constructing the lost fingers. The Petitioner did not wish to undergo surgery for reconstruction of his fingers but requested that he be provided with an automated artificial limb at State expense, the facility for which was available at a private hospital (Airmid Hospital).
It further observed that though the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 had more than 1900 rules, the same did not deal with the issue at hand:
“There are no rules dealing with the State compensating prisoners against industrial injury or occupational diseases in Delhi. In this regard, guidance can be sought from the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, whereby Rule 101(2) reads as under: ―Rule 101(2). Provision shall be made to indemnify prisoners against industrial injury, including occupational disease, on terms not less favourable than those extended by law to free workers.”
It referred to Section 53 IPC and relying on Phool Kumari v. Office of the Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar New Delhi, it reiterated that while a person sentenced to simple imprisonment has the option of choosing to work, a person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment is required by law to undergo hard labour.
It was opined that there were human rights obligations on the State and jail authorities towards the prisoners and the convicts. Further, inmates who suffered disability due to injury suffered in prison have a fundamental right to get justice and compensation as per law.
The Bench propounded the human rights obligations of the State and jail authorities towards prisoners and convicts. One such obligation is providing safe and human custody.
The decision of the Court:
Considering that no framework deals with the issue at hand, the Court laid down the following guidelines that are to be in place until necessary guidelines are formulated:
- In Case of a convict suffering work-related amputation or life-threatening injury, the Superintendent Jail would be duty bound to immediately inform about the same to the concerned Jail Inspecting Judge within 24 hours of the incident.
- A Three-Member Committee that would assess and quantify the compensation to be paid to the victim of a work-related injury, after perusing the opinion of a board of doctors will be constituted at their request by the treating hospital.
- The government hospital wherefrom the victim would be medically examined/treated for the injury or the disability, if any, the same would be put up before the above-mentioned committee for assessment of compensation.
- For assessing the injury/disability, the contributory negligence, if any, of the victim in question would be kept in mind.
- These guidelines would be applicable only in the case of amputation, or any other life-threatening injury, arising out of work-related injury, sustained by the convict.
- The essential interim compensation would be provided to such a victim in case of amputation or life-threatening injury.
This arrangement was to remain in place until necessary guidelines were formulated, rules were made or amended or any amendment was brought in the Prison Act, 1894 by the wisdom of the Parliament of India, or in Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 to deal with such situation.
Case Title: Ved Yadav vs State of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No: W.P.(CRL) 59/2023
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa.
Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Adeel-ul-Hasan.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
