The Supreme Court has stepped in to halt a contentious order issued by the Meghalaya High Court, which directed the payment of compensation ranging between Rs 10 to 15 lakh in cases of custodial deaths. The intervention follows the Meghalaya government's contention that the High Court's directive contradicted a policy decision formulated based on recommendations by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta has issued a notice on a special leave petition filed by the Meghalaya government, effectively putting a hold on the High Court's order.

The state government, represented by Advocate General Amit Kumar, challenged the validity of the High Court's order, which was issued on August 28, 2023, in response to a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

The High Court, in its suo motu PIL, had overturned a notification issued by the state government on December 15, 2022, citing inadequacy in the agreed compensation amounts. The court ruled that for custodial deaths occurring until the specified date, the next of kin of the victim would be entitled to compensation of Rs 15 lakh if the victim was below 30 years of age, Rs 12 lakh if the victim was between 30 and 45 years old, and Rs 10 lakh if the victim was above 45 years old.

Moreover, the High Court mandated that these compensation amounts would be valid until the end of 2024, after which they would increase by Rs 1.5 lakh for the highest age category and by Rs 1 lakh each for the other two categories, every three years thereafter. The rationale behind this decision was to ensure that the compensation remained adequate and served as a deterrent against custodial deaths.

However, the state government argued in its petition that the issue needed authoritative resolution by the Supreme Court to maintain uniformity and consistency across the country. It emphasized the NHRC's recommendations for standardizing compensation guidelines across states, which had been adopted by several states, including Meghalaya.

The state government further contended that the High Court's decision, based on subjective assessments rather than findings of arbitrariness in the state's policy, was an overstep. It maintained that the compensation amounts set by the state were in addition to any ex gratia payments made by the government in deserving cases.

Moreover, the state government highlighted the economic challenges faced by Meghalaya, being a small and hilly state with limited revenue sources, which made the burden of compensation significantly heavier compared to wealthier states.

Case: State of Meghalaya vs. Killing Jana & Ors,

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 47683/2023.

Click here to read/download judgment.