LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Internal Assessment 1 – Case Note

Instructors:
Raabia Abuzer Shams, Isha Das

FALL 2021

Submitted by:
Name: Shivangi Mayaramka
Enrolment ID: 21010517
Batch & Section: LLB, Sec B
 Bhim Singh vs State of J&K and others (1985)

FACTS: Mr. Bhim Singh was a member of the legislative

assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, on the opening day of budget
session held on 17th august, 1985, he was suspended from the
assembly. He was thereby traveling from Jammu to Srinagar on
the night following 9th of September but was arrested by the
police on the way at a place called Qazi Kund at 3:00 am (10 th
September).
In lieu of the events that took place, Mr. Bhims’s wife, Mrs.
Jayamala who was unaware of her husband’s whereabouts after
several efforts put into tracing him, issued a writ in Mr. Bhim’s
stead, to produce her husband before the court and to term his
detention as illegal and pronounce him free. The petitioner
claimed he was maliciously prevented from attending the
parliaments session that took place on 11 th September 1985. The
police officials in turn argued that Mr. Bhim was arrested on the
grounds of delivering a seditious speech which was a crime as
listed under section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code.

ISSUE: The issue pertaining to the above-mentioned facts could

be put forward as follows; weather the police department of
Jammu and Kashmir should be held liable for false imprisonment
and in violation of petitioners right to life and personal liberty
and protection against arrest and detention as stated under article
21 & 22 of the Indian constitution. Can it be concluded as a
transgression of petitioner’s constitutional and fundamental
rights.

RULE OF LAW: The rule in accordance with the case is on

parameters of false imprisonment and infringement of
petitioner’s fundamental rights as stated under article 21 & 22 of
the Indian constitution. False imprisonment is understood as a
 total restraint on one’s liberty and constitutional freedom without
justification regardless of the time period, however short it is.
The word 'false' means 'erroneous' or 'wrong'. It is a tort of strict
liability, and the petitioner has not to prove fault on the part of
the respondent.1 A successful false imprisonment claim requires
elements of unlawful restraint, total and complete restraint on a
person’s right to freedom.

APPLICATION/ANALYSIS: The state of Jammu & Kashmir

in tolerance with the police personnel and magistrate acted in a
mischievous capacity. False imprisonment in its essence is a
heinous human rights violation, the detention could be physical
or constructive i.e., by show of authority and in the said case we
see elements of both, in addition to that Mr. Bhim Singh’s
constitutional rights were also violated as he was deprived of
attending a very important assembly session wherein his vote
was crucial, and his fundamental rights were infringed upon
severely. As well as article 21(1) cannot be abrogated even
during an emergency, yet Mr. Bhim was treated like a prisoner
without a valid lawful justification and even a prisoner has
certain rights that the state cannot violate.

The police violated the petitioner’s rights as he was unlawfully

detained without any legal reasoning and was not produced
before the magistrate in due and requisite time frame sanctioned
by law as mentioned under article 22 of the Indian constitution,
that any person who is arrested or detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24
hours. It can be clearly interpreted from the case facts that the
police had malicious intentions since Mr. Mir had no explanation
as to why he expected Mr. Bhim to pass via Qazi Kund that
night, the supporting arguments by the petitioner’s end referring
to the 2-day remand and upon its expiry his prevention of being
1
Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Law Of Torts, 283, (26th ed. 2013).
produced Infront of the magistrate furthering on the respondent
s’ mischievous motives.

Mr. Bhim claims in his statements to the court that he wasn’t

presented before the sub judge as legally needed on the 13 th of

September. He also states he wasn’t examined by any medical

professional. Owing to all the statements made by the petitioner
it is safe to comprehend that in the said circumstances it was only
the state that was responsible for the wrongful detention of Mr.
Bhim and strongly violated his right to freedom and liberty by
causing the petitioner significant time away from crucial work-
related tasks and proven undue use of power and arbitrariness on
part of the state.

It should be noted that every individual in Indian jurisdiction has

the right to contend in the court of law if they are being detained
for over twenty-four hours without justification that is lawfully
binding. Mr. Bhim was only alleged of a crime, and it wasn’t in
the states authority to violate the petitioners’ rights solely based
on the same.

Finally, the petitioner suffered violation of his rights on account

of the respondent s, the ratio decidendi of the case being injuria
sine damno, since the petitioner did not undergo any harm, loss
or damage but none the less his legal rights were violated, and
that is all that needs to be proven in the court of law.

CONCLUSION: in conclusion, based upon the above analysis

and application of statutes we can confer, the petitioner Mr.
Bhim Singh can bring a successful claim against the state of
Jammu & Kashmir. The facts and analysis serve as a clear
understanding that false imprisonment with malicious intent took
place.
 We can only say that the Police Officers acted in a most high-
handed way. We do not wish to use stronger words to condemn
the authoritarian acts of the police. If the personal liberty of a
Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this
fashion, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser
mortals! Police Officers who are the custodians of law and
order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of
citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such
bizarre acts of lawlessness.2

In essence to the breaking down of facts and cumulation of

statutes we can derive that the judgement passed in the discussed
case is valid as the bench of O. Chinnappa Reddy and V. Khalid,
JJ concluded “We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of
Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity.” 3 And the first
respondent i.e., the state of J&K was asked to pay the petitioner a
total sum of Rs. 50,000/-. As the jurisdiction was to compensate
the victim by granting a monetary compensation.

2
MANU/SC/0064/1985
3
Id.