Mumbai: The State Human Rights Commission, in a recent order, directed the Spl. IGP, Amravati Range, and SP, Akola to consider launching departmental inquiries against erring police officials who acted arbitrarily in initiating action against the complainant, Arun Marode, in total disregard of the mandate and provisions of the law under the Essential Commodities Act. This included wrongfully arresting him.
Furthermore, the erring police officers were ordered to pay Rs 25 lakhs to the complainant, Arun Marode, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing this, they would have to pay interest at 8 percent per annum on the amount, from the date of the order until its realization, for blatantly violating the complainant’s human rights.
The commission, in its order, held “Bearing in mind the above-noted principles and applying them to the case at hand, I have no hesitation in holding that powers under Section 18(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, should be invoked in the complainant’s favor. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the complainant, Shri Marode, should be suitably awarded compensation, as such power is conferred under Section 18. This power is not controlled or inhibited by any other provision, State Legislature, or subordinate legislation. It is in addition to any other provisions covering the subject matter and not in derogation of any other law. The entitlement of a person whose human rights have been violated under relevant statutory provisions governing the payment of compensation does not, in any manner, create a bar or fetter on the right of the Commission to award compensation, keeping in mind the magnitude of the human rights violation.”
As per the complainant, on June 8,2022, the goods truck carrying 243 quintal of rice came to be seized and crime was register with the Essential Commodity Act, which came to be foisted on them. It is significant to note that seizure of the goods – the rice, with total disregard to the mandate provided of Essential Commodities Act.
The commission further stated, “This reflects a process of lawlessness, with the police assuming the role of lawbreaker—a blatant misuse of power rather than acting as guardians of the law. The Commission is constrained to express its anguish because, from the facts and circumstances that have emerged from the complaint and the police inquiry reports placed on record, it clearly reflects a blatant breach of the mandate of law relating to arrest and seizure. This has resulted in the blatant violation of the human rights of the complainant, Shri Arun Marode. Admittedly, the complainant and others faced the wrath of the respondent police.”
The commission observed that the mode and manner in which the entire action was taken by the respondent police exhibited a lack of concern for ensuring due and proper compliance with the mandate of the law relating to arrest and seizure.
The filing of a ‘C Summary’ in the case further demonstrated that the action of registering the crime against the complainant and others was an oversight. This is reflected in their subsequent action of moving an application for approval of the ‘C Summary’ from the Learned Magistrate.
