Maibang Police Firing: Gauhati High Court Finds Fundamental Rights Violation, Awards Total ₹12L Compensation To Bereaved & Injured

The Gauhati High Court has held that the police firing at the Maibang protest resulted in violation of the fundamental rights of the victims, and awarded ₹3 lakh each to the families of the two deceased persons and ₹2 lakh each to three seriously injured victims.

A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed, “The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/ or being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the matter, the firing incident had also resulted in the victims suffering bullet injuries, above their waist also. Accordingly, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, a case of violation of their fundamental rights is found to have been made out.”

The ruling came in a writ petition filed by one Richard Sangyung in connection with the police firing at Maibang Railway Station in January, 2018. The petitioner sought, among other reliefs, an independent enquiry into the firing incident and compensation for the deceased and seriously injured persons.

The petitioner projected that protests were being held in Dima Hasao district against the proposed inclusion of areas of the district within “Greater Nagalim”. According to him, the police resorted to firing on protesters at Maibang Railway Station, resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to several others, including his brother.

He contended that the injuries sustained by the victims, including bullet injuries above the waist, showed that the requisite precaution had not been taken and that the police had resorted to excessive force.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the protesters had damaged railway property, pelted stones at the police and civil personnel and that, after other measures failed, the police resorted to controlled single shot firing to disperse the crowd. It was also submitted that the investigation in the two police cases arising from the incident had already concluded.

Considering the matter, the High Court first held that the firing incident could not, from the materials available on record, be held to have been resorted to without any provocation from the protesters.

The Court noted that the factual matrix regarding damage caused to railway property, civil and police vehicles and the setting on fire of a police vehicle by persons forming part of the violent mob had not been disputed.

“Accordingly, the said firing incident cannot be held by this Court, from the materials available on record, to be one so resorted by the police without there being any provocation from the protesters.”

The Court, however, found that the nature of injuries suffered by the victims established violation of their fundamental rights. It noted that the protesters had initially turned their peaceful agitation into a violent one and pelted stones at the police, following which the police resorted to firing from the railway platform while the protesters were on the railway track.

“Applying the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed, hereinabove, to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that initially it was the protesters who had taken the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation to a violent one and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the police. The police, thereafter, had resorted to firing.”

The Court accordingly directed the State to pay Rs.3 lakh each to the families of the two deceased victims, Praben Hakmus and Mithun Dibragede, and Rs.2 lakh each to the three seriously injured victims, Alpana Langthasa, Thaisring Hojai and Sunujit Sengyung.

“It has been settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, noticed, hereinabove, that this Court can direct for payment of compensations to the victims. Such compensations awarded by this Court would be borne by the State and not the individual police personnel involved in the matter. Further, doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to the cases of Fundamental Rights violation and cannot be used as a defense in public law.”

Clarifying the nature of the compensation, the Court said that it was being granted as a public law remedy and not as damages ordinarily awarded in a civil action.

“The payment of compensation as is being ordered by us, is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order making monetary amends under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the Fundamental Rights of the citizen. The compensation is only in the nature of exemplary damages, awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public duty.”

The Court further clarified that the compensation would be independent of the right of the aggrieved parties to claim damages through a civil suit and would be in addition to any compensation already sanctioned by the Government. The amount was directed to be released within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

On the prayer for an independent enquiry, the Court declined to issue any further direction considering the passage of time, the enquiry reports already submitted and the conclusion of investigation in the two police cases arising from the incident.

“Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, as well as the submission of Enquiry Reports including the one submitted by the 'One Man Enquiry Commission', and the conclusion of the investigation in the police cases, registered with regard to the said incident, we are of the considered view that at this stage, a direction for a further enquiry in the matter by an independent authority, would not be relevant.”

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Richard Sangyung v. State of Assam & 4 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/652/2018

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 155

Click Here To Read Judgement