Kehar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

This case is related to an accident i.e. Anti-Sikh riots happened in 1984 in Dongargarh (Chhattisgarh). Compensation is ordered by the Delhi High Court to all the families whose members were killed in this accident. But some families did not get the full amount of compensation hence, they filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Appellant claims that the amount of compensation given to them is not complete, so they want full amount with interest. Appellants filed a petition to get their compensation amount from the respondents for the death of each victim in Anti-Sikh riots. The petitioners pray to the respondents to give the compassionate appointment to the family members of the petitioners.

Citation                                                                 2002 (3) MPHT 28 CG
Year                                                                                 2002
Court                                                                   Chhattisgarh High Court
Appellant                                                            Kehar Singh and Anr.
Respondent                                                         State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.
Bench                                                                                               J.  Fakhruddin
Article                                                                    226, 227


 In Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration Delhi High Court decide when some people died in Anti-Sikh Riots that compensation is provided to the families. The compensation decided by the court is 2 lakhs per death. But some families did not get the full amount, Kehar Singh was the father of Shri Harmit Singh who also died in this accident. The full amount was not given to Kehar Singh, so he filed a writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court. The reason for the writ petition is the incomplete compensation by the respondent. The total amount given to the appellate is only 50,000 Rupees.

The full amount was not given to Kehar Singh, so he filed a writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court. Kehar Singh wants the full amount of the compensation with interest. Appellate only wanted his amount and nothing else from the court. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution.


In Civil Writ Petition No. 1429/96 in case of Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration reported in 1996 III AD (Delhi) 333, the High Court of Delhi decides that the victims died in Anti-Sikh riots was awarded a compensation of two lakhs. Compensation is given to the families of the victims. But after the decision of the High Court respondents do not give full compensation to some families of the victims. Due to this attitude of the respondent’s writ petition was filed by a victim in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The main reason to file this petition is to get remaining compensation with full interest. Compensation given to the appellate is 50,000 as 20,000 in year 1984 and 30,000 in the the year 1998.


  • Some people died in the Anti-Sikh riots incident in the year 1984.
  • In the reference of this incident, a case was filed in Delhi High Court as  Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration and the court decides to award compensation of 2 lakh per family of the victims.
  • The amount of compensation was not given equally to all families, some families get the full amount, and some get the incomplete amount of compensation.
  • The families who do not get the full amount of compensation get 20,000 in the year 1984 and 30,000 in the year 1998 means the total amount is 50,000 rupees.
  • The families of the victims who does not get the full amount of compensation file a writ petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
  • The objectives of the appeal are that they want the remaining amount of compensation with interest from the date of compensation awarded.
  • Then the court said in the response of writ that appellate do its work properly and compensation is not given to them.


  • Compensation given to the victim’s families was complete or not.
  • Now the families are eligible to get remaining compensation with Interest.


Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Article 227 of the Indian Constitution

Related Cases

The case of Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration[i] is a writ petition, in which the petitioner, a riot victim’s widow, owed her 20,000 due to the death of her husband. Demands an increase in the amount of compensation. Petitioner’s husband Shri Narayan Singh lost his life on 1 November 1984 in the riots that followed the murder of Smt. Indira Gandhi. On the fateful day, he was traveling by Bombay Ferozepur Janta Express train. According to FIR No. 355 filed on November 1, 1984, around 12:30 pm at the police station New Delhi railway station, the train slipped at Tughlakabad railway station, where 300–350 villagers surrounded it. They escorted 25/26 Sikh passengers out of the train and killed them. Those killed include Narayan Singh’s son Jawahar Singh, Village Bhaljala, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab.

This direction of payment of enhanced compensation will apply to similar cases of equality to reduce the suffering of the families of the victims who lost their lives during the 1984 Delhi riots. According to this, it has been directed that the widows and families who lost their lives in the 1984 Delhi riots be paid Rs. An amount of Rs.50 Lakh (Rs. 2 Lakh including interest on Rs. 50 Lakh) to be paid.

In case of S. S. Ahluwalia v. Union of India[ii] view of the assassination of Smt. On 31 October 1984, Indira Gandhi committed several murders in Delhi and other parts of the country from 31 October 1984 to November 1984, including arson, looting and murder. Justice R.N. A committee was formed under the chairmanship of. Mishra of this Court made an inquiry and stated that the Sikhs killed in those riots were 3874 in Delhi, 127 in Kanpur and 69 in Bokaro. Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 in Mrs. Kaur v. Delhi Administration, was filed in the High Court of Delhi to compensate the dependents of those killed in the riots after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi’s duty as a state was to protect the lives of her citizens and the state should be compensated.

Therefore, the High Court directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also made a general direction that this direction should also be applicable in similar cases. Subsequently, this writ petition seeks to extend the benefit of the judgment in Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration (supra) to the entire country and some other relief.


  1. Learned from the petitioners’ counsel that the incident took place in the town of Dongargarh (Chhattisgarh) where Mr. Harmeet Singh was around 25 years old, son of petitioner No. 1 and another Sardar Santosh Singh, aged 58, who was the husband of petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that on 15-11-1984 Rs. 20,000 / – was given as an immediate relief to both the families on the spot and in the year 1998 Rs. 30000 / – was paid. This was followed by Rs. 50,000 / – was given.
  2. Counsel for the petitioner learned that the Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 (Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration) reported in 1996 AIHC 5644, the Delhi High Court directed the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest and also a general direction that it should apply to other similar cases.
  3. At this stage, it was learned of the petitioners’ petition that the state of Madhya Pradesh has been reorganized and set a date for the Supreme Court’s 16-3-2001 decision in the case of SS Ahluwalia (AIR 2001 SC 1309) (supra). The state of Chhattisgarh was already formed and as far as the victims of the present case are concerned, they were residing in the state of Chhattisgarh, so the petitioners prayed for the benefit of the decision in the Bhajan Kaur (supra) to the state Chhattisgarh as a welfare state of.
  4. From the documents on record, it is clear that both Harmeet Singh and Santosh Singh were killed in the anti-Sikh riots and some amount was paid to their dependents.
  5. So far as the relief of appointments and other reliefs relating to other claims are concerned, the petitioners are entitled to make a representation before the competent authority and if any such representation is filed, the competent authority shall consider the same and a proper one for 3 Will pass the order. Month from the date of receipt of representation.
  6. It is clarified that if the order passed by the respondents is adver se to the interest of the petitioners, they are free to apply afresh.
  7. The state will also submit a report as to whether after the death of the victims, an FIR was lodged and whether a criminal was brought in the incident. A report to that effect will be filed before the Registrar General within 3 months for filing in the Chamber.

Concepts Highlighted

 After reading this case we are able to conclude that corruption is the main cause for failure of any government policy. The policies are made for benefit of its citizens, but the policies do not get success. But any person can not be released by law if he does a wrong civil or criminal. All the citizens are equally eligible to get the benefits of government policies.

[i] ILR 1996 Delhi 754

[ii] 2002 (6) BomCR 157

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *