High Court Initiates Disciplinary Inquiry Against Tehsildar
The Rajasthan High Court has directed a disciplinary inquiry against a tehsildar, Tejpal Pareek, for unlawfully detaining an HIV-positive man despite a suspended sentence in a land encroachment case. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal, has also mandated Pareek to compensate the detainee with ₹2 lakh, emphasizing that the State shall not bear this cost.
Details of the Case
The case arose when the tehsildar failed to release the man from civil custody, even after the Additional Divisional Commissioner issued an order on April 15 to suspend his sentence. The man’s detention, which commenced on March 5 due to government land encroachment charges, lasted beyond the suspension order, prompting his wife to file a habeas corpus petition in the High Court. Following the Court’s intervention, he was released on June 8.
Violation of Fundamental Rights
The Court expressed grave concern over the tehsildar’s actions, describing them as a blatant defiance of the rule of law. Justice Ali and Justice Beniwal noted the severe impact of the unlawful detention, particularly given the detainee’s need for continuous HIV treatment and his wife’s concurrent battle with cancer. The Bench underscored that the unlawful detention constituted a serious breach of Article 21, which guarantees the right to personal liberty under the Indian Constitution.
Court’s Observations
The High Court remarked that Pareek’s claim of ignorance regarding the sentence suspension was unacceptable. It highlighted that such orders are typically communicated to subordinate authorities and that government counsel or law officers are present during proceedings. The Court further criticized Pareek for not acting promptly even after he acknowledged being aware of the order by June 1.
Strong Indictment of the Officer
The Bench described the tehsildar as a liability to the revenue administration and a threat to civil society, emphasizing that his actions undermine the accountability of the government. The Court highlighted the potential dangers posed by an officer capable of such defiance, particularly concerning the handling of official documents and records.
More Read
Conclusion and Legal Representation
The Court concluded that the detainee’s continued detention after June 1 was illegal and declared it a significant infringement of his fundamental rights. However, it specified that the actual period of illegal detention would be determined by the forthcoming departmental inquiry.
Advocate Jogendra Singh represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Deepak Choudhary appeared for the State in this case.
