Guwahati: Nearly eight and a half years after police firing at Maibang Railway Station in Assam’s Dima Hasao district left two protesters dead and a dozen others injured, the Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam government to pay exemplary compensation to the victims’ families, while declining to order a fresh independent probe.
A division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair disposed of a writ petition filed by Richard Sangyung, whose brother Sunujit Sangyung was seriously injured in the firing.
The court directed the Assam government to pay Rs 3 lakh each to the families of the two deceased, Praben Hakmus and Mithun Dibragede, and Rs 2 lakh each to three seriously injured victims — Alpana Langthasa, Thaisring Hojai and Sunujit Sengyung — within three months.
The petitioner approached the High Court after his brother was injured in the January 25, 2018 firing, which occurred during protests by Dimasa organisations opposing the reported inclusion of parts of Dima Hasao in a proposed “Greater Nagalim.”
Tensions had risen following a news report on the draft Naga peace accord, which triggered fears of territorial loss. Groups including the Jadikhe Nalso Hosom, Dimasa Students’ Union and Dimasa Mothers Association subsequently organised protests.
On the day of the incident, protesters gathered on the railway track near Maibang Railway Station. The petitioner alleged that police first resorted to lathi charge and then indiscriminate firing on an unarmed crowd without warning.
The Asasm government, however, maintained that protesters had blocked a passenger train, damaged railway property, pelted stones and attempted to set the stranded train on fire. It said police opened fire only after other measures, including tear gas and rubber bullets, failed.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vikram Rajkhowa argued that three enquiries — by the Superintendent of Police, a Magisterial Enquiry and a One Man Enquiry Commission — were inadequate and appeared aimed at shielding police and officials rather than establishing the truth.
He argued that bullet injuries above the victims’ waists indicated excessive and indiscriminate force, and cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal in support of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of Article 21.
The Assam government, represented by the Senior Government Advocate, defended the police action, citing the One Man Enquiry Commission’s finding that firing was resorted to only after civil measures failed. It also submitted that officers had fired from the elevated railway platform, explaining the injuries above the waist.
The bench noted that the two police cases registered over the incident had reached their logical conclusion — one resulting in a charge-sheet against six accused and the other in a final report. Given the passage of time and the enquiries already conducted, it held that a further independent probe was not warranted. Aggrieved parties, it said, remained free to pursue remedies through the ordinary criminal process.
However, relying on Supreme Court precedent including Anita Thakur v. Government of J&K, the bench found that although the protest had turned violent, the pattern of injuries suggested that the police response was not entirely proportionate, amounting to a violation of the victims’ fundamental rights under Article 21.
The court clarified that the compensation was exemplary in nature and awarded under public law, distinct from and in addition to any compensation already paid by the government, and without prejudice to any civil suit for damages the victims may pursue.
The writ petition, filed in 2018, was accordingly disposed of with these directions.