Provide compensation in cases of excessive detention: CIC

Prison authorities should not wait for detainees to approach courts seeking compensation for custody exceeding their term and instead develop a mechanism for providing compensation on their own, Central Information Commission has held.
"It is the duty of the state to provide for a system to see that no prisoner is detained even a minute beyond the term and, if it happens even by mistake, it has to pay suitable compensation without driving the victims to courts of law," Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said.
A Tihar prisoner O P Gandhi had approached the Commission claiming that the relevant information and documents furnished by the authorities evidently established that he was detained 18 days in excess and claimed adequate compensation for this wrong done to him.

Tihar authorities said they did not have any mechanism to grant compensation on their own and, if Gandhi wanted compensation, he should have filed an application.
"The authorities should have justified the detention beyond term. That was not done. In such cases, the good governance demands prompt payment of damages for the trespass to person by false imprisonment under law of torts (civil wrongs)," Acharyulu noted.
He said better administration demands that the jail authorities should have a pre-determined system of calculating the value of freedom approximately and, when he is released, the prisoner should get the duly calculated amount to compensate for the "false imprisonment" without waiting for a formal filing of petition.

The Information Commissioner said when the right is

already guaranteed under Article 21 of Indian Constitution (personal liberty), and when it is proved that it has been violated, why should state wait for a formal petition to be filed?
"Why push the detained victim to file a suit in civil court or write to higher courts seeking remedy for violation of personal liberty? In a welfare state, it is the duty of the state," he said.
Acharyulu said if Tihar authorities required a formal petition for compensation in such violations of excessive detention, they should have framed a format or template and informed the prisoners to avail of such service by filling a formal application.

"They should have treated this second appeal itself as the formal application for the compensation and considered the same positively," he said.
He said it will be a legitimate expectation of the people that responsible officers would inform them that a system is in place to prevent excessive detention and, if it happens, to provide remedy/compensation along with rates of compensation under the obligation of Section 4 of Right to Information Act, 2005.
Directing the Tihar prison to positively consider plea of Gandhi for compensation, Acharyulu said the jail authorities should also have a fixed time to respond to the petition with payment of compensation.

"Surprisingly, the Tihar Jail has no such mechanism. Not only in Tihar but nowhere in India, such good people-centric remedy was provided, unfortunately," he said.