The Allahabad High Court has issued a summons to Uttar Pradesh’s Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Sanjay Prasad, following the state’s non-compliance with a directive to establish guidelines for compensating custodial death cases. Justice Saurabh Lavania has indicated that Prasad may face punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consequently, Prasad is required to appear in court on July 31 for further proceedings, which could include the framing of charges.
Background and Legal Proceedings
The court’s order, issued on July 24, addresses a contempt petition that highlights the state’s failure to adhere to a prior directive from a Division Bench dated February 20. This petition originated from a plea by a woman whose son, a minor, died in a district prison on February 20, 2024. Despite the high court’s previous order for a compensation payment of ₹10 lakh, the state has yet to fulfill this requirement.
Details of the Custodial Death
The deceased minor faced charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in connection with a 2016 rape case. He had been imprisoned for approximately three years and ten months and was granted bail in February 2022. However, he was re-arrested on February 7, 2024, after failing to appear in trial court. Tragically, on February 20, 2024, he was found to have hanged himself in prison.
Allegations of Misconduct and State’s Defense
The petitioner’s allegations pointed to police torture in jail as a contributing factor to the minor’s death, citing demands for illegal payments, including a monthly sum of ₹4,500. The state has strongly denied these allegations, maintaining that there was no official involvement in the death. Nonetheless, the court has asserted the state’s absolute liability for unnatural deaths occurring within its prisons.
Legal and Advocacy Perspectives
Justice Lavania expressed surprise at the lack of explicit legal provisions in India for compensating victims of unlawful detention or custodial deaths. The case was represented by advocates Rama Kant Dixit and Uday Kumar, who have been actively pursuing justice for the petitioner. This ongoing legal battle highlights significant gaps in the Indian legal framework concerning custodial accountability and compensation for related grievances.
More Read
[Read Order]
