Allahabad HC summons UP Home Secretary over custodial death compensation

• The Allahabad High Court has summoned Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad over the State's failure to comply with an order directing it to frame guidelines for payment of compensation in custodial death cases.
• The court's decision is based on Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for punishment in case of disobedience or resistance to a court's order.
• The case involves a minor who died in a district prison on February 20, 2024, and his mother has moved a contempt of court petition alleging that the State had failed to pay her the compensation of ₹10 lakh as ordered by the high court.

The Allahabad High Court has taken a significant step in addressing the issue of custodial deaths in Uttar Pradesh. On July 24, Justice Saurabh Lavania directed Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad to appear before the court on July 31 for further proceedings related to the contempt of court petition. The court's order was issued due to the State's failure to comply with an earlier directive to frame guidelines for payment of compensation in custodial death cases.

The case at hand involves a minor who died in a district prison on February 20, 2024. The boy had been facing rape charges and had undergone imprisonment for over three years before being granted bail in February 2022. However, he was rearrested on February 7, 2024, after failing to appear before the trial court, and subsequently took his own life inside the prison.

The mother of the deceased minor has moved a contempt of court petition alleging that the State had failed to pay her the compensation of ₹10 lakh as ordered by the high court. The court's decision to summon Sanjay Prasad is a clear indication of its intent to ensure compliance with its earlier orders and to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

The Allahabad High Court's order is based on Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provides for punishment in case of disobedience or resistance to a court's order. The court has directed Sanjay Prasad to remain present before it on July 31 for further proceedings, including framing of charges. This development highlights the importance of complying with court orders and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

The issue at hand is not only about compliance with court orders but also about ensuring that those responsible for custodial deaths are held accountable. The case raises questions about the treatment of prisoners in Uttar Pradesh's jails and the need for stricter guidelines to prevent such incidents in the future.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provide a framework for dealing with cases involving children. However, it is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that these laws are implemented effectively and that those responsible for custodial deaths are brought to justice.

The Allahabad High Court's decision to summon Sanjay Prasad sets a significant precedent in addressing the issue of custodial deaths in Uttar Pradesh. The court's intent is clear: to ensure compliance with its earlier orders and to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

This development has far-reaching implications for lawyers, compliance officers, and policymakers. It highlights the need for stricter guidelines and more effective implementation of laws related to custodial deaths. The case also underscores the importance of ensuring that prisoners are treated humanely and that those responsible for custodial deaths are brought to justice.

The potential precedent set by this contempt of court case may lead to increased scrutiny of custodial death cases and stricter guidelines for compensation payment. This is a welcome development, as it will help ensure that families of victims receive the compensation they deserve and that those responsible for custodial deaths are held accountable.

Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for the potential precedent set by this contempt of court case, which may lead to increased scrutiny of custodial death cases and stricter guidelines for compensation payment.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench