The Gauhati High Court has directed the State of Assam to pay compensation to the victims of the 2018 police firing at Maibang Railway Station, ruling that bullet injuries sustained above the waist constitute a clear violation of fundamental rights despite initial provocation by violent protesters.

The Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each to the families of two deceased victims and ₹2,00,000 each to three seriously injured individuals, emphasizing that sovereign immunity cannot shield the State from monetary public law remedies when public duties fail to protect citizen rights.

The Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair held, "we are of the considered view that initially it was the protesters who had taken the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation to a violent one and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the police. The police, thereafter, had resorted to firing. The police personnel had resorted to such firing from the railway platform, while the protestors were in the railway track, at the relevant point of time. The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/ or being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the matter, the firing incident had also resulted in the victims suffering bullet injuries, above their waist also. Accordingly, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, a case of violation of their fundamental rights is found to have been made out."

Advocate V. Rajkhowa appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Government Advocate D. Nath appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, who is the brother of the one Sunujit Sangyung, alleged that his brother had suffered grievous injuries, along with others, on account of indiscriminate firing resorted to by the police upon the peaceful protesters at the Maibang Railway Station area in Dima Hasao district on the eve of Republic Day in 2018.

It was alleged that the dharna programme had gone on peacefully until around 02:30 p.m., at which time the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao, had arrived at the spot with a strong police force and, without declaring the assembly to be unlawful and/ or taking steps to disperse the group, the police started a ‘lathi’ charge on the peaceful protesters, injuring many women and minors.

Accordingly, it is alleged that the police started indiscriminate firing on the unarmed protesters at the Maibong Railway Station with modern weapons, which led to various injuries to the petitioner’s brother.

Therefore, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking grant of exemplary compensation to the deceased person as well as to the three seriously injured persons, including the brother of the petitioner.

Contentions of the Parties

It was contended by the Petitioner that the High Court was monitoring the investigation in the matter and had noticed the anomaly existing in the investigation, so carried out by the Investigating Officer, along with the undue delay occasioned in the conclusion of the investigation.

The Petitioner further submitted that perusal of the enquiry reports brought on record, including the reports submitted by the One Man Enquiry Commission, constituted by the Government, to enquire into the firing incident occurring in 2018, would reveal that the same were so submitted without a proper enquiry being conducted. 

Per Contra, the State submitted that a ‘Bandh’ call was given by certain community organization for 12 hours, i.e. 05:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. It was submitted that it was not disputed by the petitioner that a section of the people had also sat on the railway track of the Maibang Railway Station. 

The Respondents submitted that when the SDPO, Maibang, tried to approach the protesters to dissuade them from causing damage to the railway property, the protesters started stone pelting at the police party. 

It was also submitted that the police used gas grenade, stun grenade, dye markers, rubber bullets and blank rounds, to disperse the crowd, but as the crowd continued with the stone pelting and damaged public and railway property, the police resorted to blank firing in the air, but when the situation got worse and the stone pelting started from all sides, left with no other option, the police party resorted to controlled single shot firing, below the knee, to disperse the crowd.

Observations of the Court

After considering the Enquiry Committee Report and the long lapse of time, the Court remarked that the direction for a further enquiry in the matter by an independent authority would not be relevant. 

Further, the Court observed that it can direct payment of compensation to the victims. Such compensations awarded by this Court would be borne by the State and not the individual police personnel involved in the matter.

"Further, doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to the cases of Fundamental Rights violation and cannot be used as a defense in public law. Accordingly, considering the matter in its proper perspective, we direct the State to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the family of each of the deceased victims, i.e. Praben Hakmus and Mithun Dibragede. We also direct that the payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each to the 03 (three) seriously injured victims, viz. Alpana Langthasa, Thaisring Hojai and Sunujit Sengyung", it directed.

The Court concluded that the payment of compensation is not to be understood as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law, but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order making monetary amends under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the Fundamental Rights of the citizen.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Richard Sangyung v. The State of Assam and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:12436]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates V. Rajkhowa, S Borathakur and D Gogoi 

Respondents: Senior Government Advocate D. Nath

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: