BHIM SINGH V.

STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Petitioner, Bhim Singh, was a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu &
Kashmir State. On 10th September, 1986, while on his way to attend a voting session
of the Legislative Assembly, Bhim Singh was detained by the State Police, thereby
preventing him to attend the Session of the Assembly. Although Bhim Singh could
not cast his vote in the Assembly, the candidate favoured by him had won by
majority.
2. Bhim Singh was kept in police custody from 10 th to 14th, and was produced in front of
a Magistrate for the first time on 14th September, 1986
3. Bhim Singh’s wife, had filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Supreme Court seeking
the release of Bhim Singh from police custody. Subsequently, the Supreme Court
directed the Inspector General of Police to inform the wife about Bhim Singh’s arrest
where he was held in custody. On 16th of September, 1986, Bhim Singh was released
from police custody on bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu before whom he was
produced later on.
4. After being released on bail, on 20 th September, Bhim Singh submitted an affidavit
before the Supreme Court as an addition to the petition, stating that he was not
produced before the District Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, and that he was
being constantly harassed by the police authorities while in custody.
5. This matter was heard by the Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice V. Khalid of
the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

The three essential questions posed to the judges hearing the matter were:

1. Whether the detainment of Mr. Bhim Singh by the state police was legally justified
2. Whether the Supreme Court can award exemplary damages to Mr. Bhim Singh for his
illegal detention
3. Whether the detainment of Mr. Bhim Singh from casting his vote in the Jammu &
Kashmir Assembly violate his rights

1
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494
RULES

1. Article 22 (2) of the Indian Constitution2: “Every person who is arrested and
detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of
twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in
custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate”. This Article
and its subclause clearly elaborate the procedure that is to be followed in case of any
arrest.
2. Section 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733: This section suggests that the
Police must be diligent in handling matters of arrest, and must either produce the
accused in front of the magistrate (with the necessary jurisdiction) or release the
person on Bail.
3. Article 32 (2) of the Constitution4: This Article is the “Heart and Soul” of the
Constitution. This part lays down the various writs that can be availed, one of them
being Habeas Corpus. This writ is used to release a person who has been detained or
imprisoned unlawfully.
4. Section 340 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 5: “Whosoever wrongfully restrains in such
manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond a certain circumscribing
limit is said to wrongfully confine that person.” This Section defines the term
“Wrongful imprisonment”, which can be applied in the aforementioned case.
5. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution 6: “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal except according to a procedure established by the Law”. This Article of the
Constitution guarantees the Right to Life and Personal liberty. The right to freely
move is of close proximity to the fundamental right of personal liberty, and is
applicable in the above given case.

HELD

Supreme Court ordered for Mr. Bhim Singh to be released from police custody, and awarded
exemplary damages to him as a compensation for the violation of his rights. The Hon’ble
court found the police authorities to be guilty of wrongful imprisonment.

2
India Const. art. 22, §2.
3
The Code of Criminal Procedure, §56, 1973 (India)
4
India Const. art. 32 §2.
5
Indian Penal Code, §340, 1860 (India).
6
India Const. art. 21.
ANALYSIS

The term “false imprisonment” can be broadly defined as an instance where a person, without
any legal justification or legal authority, intentionally restricts the freedom of movement of
another person without that person’s consent7. This is also known as “wrongful
confinement”. This classifies as both a civil as well as a criminal wrong 8, and is dealt with
specifically in the Indian Penal Code. In addition, it applies to both private and governmental
detention. False imprisonment is also known as one of the most brutal human rights
violations throughout the world.

The case at hand, Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, primarily deals with the issue
of false imprisonment, and also elaborates how this wrong violates the constitutional rights
guaranteed to persons under Article 21 and 22(2). Immediate remedy to false imprisonment is
to obtain the writ of Habeas Corpus (release of person from illegal custody).

Article 21 of the Constitution talks about the right to life and personal liberty, and an
exception to this right i.e., this right can be taken away, if due procedure of law is followed.
The procedure established by law, that deals with the arrest of individuals by the police is
clearly laid out in Art. 22(2). This article states that an individual arrested by the police must
be produced in front of the magistrate within 24 hours (within one day of the time of arrest).

In this case, the police produced Mr. Bhim Singh in front of the Magistrate after 4 days of
his arrest, which is in clear violation of the guidelines laid down by Article 22 (2).

Hence, this act of the police is not in consonance to the procedure laid down by the law, and
such an arrest made by them is unlawful, and is not legally justifiable in the eyes of the law.

In this case, the author of the judgement 9, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, severely condemned
the actions of the police, and called them “authoritarian” and “high-handed”. He further went
on to state, that the police must act in consonance with law, as they are the custodians and
guardians of the same. Their duty is to protect, and not abduct.

Furthermore, we can say that in this case, the police have committed the tort of false
imprisonment, as they had a malafide intention of detaining Mr. Bhim Singh before the
7
Bird v. Jones, (1845) 7 QB 742
8
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_imprisonment , (7th
March, 2022)
9
Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1227505/ , (last visited 8th March, 2022)
voting session of the Assembly. We can establish this ill intention of the police, by attributing
it to their conduct of dealing with this case in particular.

The tort of false imprisonment is a tort of Injuria Sine Damnum, i.e., a legal injury, without
causing any physical harm to the person. Although the police had imprisoned Mr. Bhim
Singh, and this did not result in any physical harm to him, they violated his fundamental and
other legal rights, hence causing a legal injury without any physical damage.

If a person is wrongfully held by a police officer or government official, he or someone

acting on his behalf can submit a writ of Habeas Corpus, which restores the person's liberty.
To avoid being falsely arrested or imprisoned, a person who is about to be falsely arrested or
imprisoned can use reasonable force, such as self-defence, depending on the given
circumstances.

Another Injuria Sine Damnum caused to Mr. Bhim Singh, was when he was detained and
denied his right to vote in the session of the State Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir. Although
the candidate favoured by Mr. Bhim Singh had won the majority vote in the voting session,
Bhim Singh was denied his right to vote in the Assembly, and therefore, injured his legal
rights without causing any actual harm to his interests.

The Supreme Court observed that the rights of Mr. Bhim Singh were violated with impunity
by the Police authorities, and therefore, Mr. Bhim Singh was awarded monetary
compensation by way of exemplary damages. The Supreme Court directed the first
respondent, The State of Jammu & Kashmir to pay exemplary damages of Rs. 50,000/- to the
petitioner, Mr. Bhim Singh. This right of the Supreme Court to award exemplary damages
has been laid down in the case Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar10 and Sebestian M. Hongray v.
Union of India11.

CONCLUSION

This analysis has given us a deeper insight into the concept of false imprisonment, and its
essential elements. The main summary of this analysis is as follows-

1. Firstly, Detainment of Mr. Bhim Singh is not legally justified, as the procedure of law
was not followed by the police;

10
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983 (3) SCR 508
11
Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India, 1984 AIR SC 1026
 2. Secondly, the wrongful imprisonment of Mr. Bhim Singh was a severe violation of
his rights, and can be awarded exemplary damages;
3. Lastly, detaining Bhim Singh from exercising his voting rights also constitute breach
of his Fundamental right to vote;

The right to freely move is not only considered a fundamental right under Article 21, but also
deemed as a natural right of a human being. These rights cannot be abolished at any cost, not
even during a state of emergency. Subsequently, the violation of such an essential right,
without any legal justification, sets a negative example for the future of our country and its
legal system. The judges of the Supreme Court have also kept in mind, the mental injuries
inflicted by the police on Mr. Bhim Singh while in their custody. This was one of the main
factors taken into consideration while awarding the exemplary damages.

This case emphasises the importance of personal liberty and fundamental rights, which is
relevant to the current socio-political scenario, where the Government is resorting to falsely
detaining activists and protestors, to neutralise any sort of dissent12.

Our Indian socio-legal system is based on the foundation of Ahimsa, mutual respect and
human dignity. Even the prisoners have human rights because prison punishment is not the
ultimate remedy to get justice, what is equally important is confessing the failure to do justice
to a living being.

Last but not the least, this adjudication of the Supreme Court has definitely strengthened its
reputation as the custodian of legal rights, and in addition, acts as a beacon of hope for all the
citizens of the Nation, thereby increasing their belief in the judicial system as a whole.

12
Observer Research Foundation, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law-threat-indian-
democracy/ , (Last visited 8th March, 2022)