Delhi High Court quashes ₹5 lakh NHRC compensation in station suicide case

The Delhi High Court overturned an NHRC order awarding ₹5 lakh to Rashid Raza's family. The ruling stressed that police liability requires demonstrable negligence rather than presumption or hindsight.

In Short

• Rashid Raza was found hanging inside Narela Industrial Area police station
• An inquest found no evidence of scuffle or custodial torture
• CCTV footage showed Raza moving freely before the fatal incident

The Delhi High Court has set aside a National Human Rights Commission order directing the Delhi Police to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the family of a man who allegedly died by suicide at a police station in December 2019.

Justice Amit Mahajan allowed the Delhi Police's petition challenging the commission's April 19, 2024, order, holding that there was no independent basis to infer negligence by police officials.

The case concerns the death of Rashid Raza, who was found hanging in a ground-floor room of a police station in the Narela Industrial Area. The court's order was passed on October 12 and uploaded on its website on Wednesday.

The NHRC had said Raza was in police custody and that the police were responsible for preventing any harm to him. It held that the suicide could have been prevented had police officials been vigilant.

The High Court, however, said the NHRC proceedings were summary in nature and its recommendation for payment of compensation on the ground of negligence in preventing a human rights violation could not be sustained.

“The death, though extremely unfortunate, does not ipso facto raise a presumption of negligence. The location of the death, though a relevant factor, ought not to be the only factor to fasten liability,” the court said.

The court referred to an inquest report by a sub-divisional magistrate, which said there was no evidence of a scuffle or torture at the police station. It also noted that CCTV footage showed Raza moving without restriction and suggested that the incident may have occurred without the police having a reasonable opportunity to intervene.

“In such circumstances, in the absence of material establishing a specific omission, prior knowledge of imminent danger, or a reasonable opportunity to prevent the occurrence, negligence cannot be fastened upon the police by inference alone merely because the deceased happened to be at the police station,” the court said.

“A tragic consequence, however grave, does not by itself establish culpable inaction. This court does not intend to and is not stating that police officials ought not to be vigilant or that unnatural death when in custody of police may not attract consequence,” it added.

The court said liability must be based on demonstrable negligence and not merely hindsight or presumption. It said the NHRC had essentially sought to punish the police for failing to anticipate and prevent the death of a man who had voluntarily come to the police station and whose movement had not been restricted. “The same cannot, in the opinion of this court, be countenanced,” it said.

The police's counsel had contended that Raza visited the police station unannounced and without prior notice to inquire about his wife's body. The court had also noted that the transcript of an audio recording sent by Raza from his phone to his brother prima facie indicated that he died by suicide.

Setting aside the NHRC order, the High Court concluded that compensation could not be imposed on the Delhi Police without material showing a specific failure, prior knowledge of danger or a reasonable opportunity to prevent Raza's death.

- Ends