CW-1996-0010Chandigarh, ChandigarhJudgment 8 November 1996

Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held Chandigarh Administration and Punjab jointly and severally liable for the 23 October 1990 police firing on anti-Mandal demonstrators at the Sectors 37-38 crossing, in which a 21-year-old driver was killed. The Court found no warning, unlawful-assembly declaration, lathi charge, tear gas or aerial fire had been shown, held straightway firing itself presumptive proof of the State's tortious act, and awarded the father 1,00,000 compensation within three months on strict public-law liability. The police claim of self-defence was rejected. ASI (Punjab Armed Police) led the party and lodged FIR No. 207/1990; no individual officer was held personally liable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 8 November 1996 in Civil Writ Petition No. 11670 of 1993, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: R.L. Anand, J.) returned findings adverse to the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Armed Police (lodged FIR No. 207/1990, PS Sector 39), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).

Register number
CH 01 CW 0002
Case reference
Civil Writ Petition No. 11670 of 1993 / 2(1997) ACC 108
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: R.L. Anand, J.), 8 November 1996
Officer(s) at the material time
Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Armed Police (lodged FIR No. 207/1990, PS Sector 39)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“To resort to straightway firing in itself is the presumptive proof of the torturous act committed by the State and its functionaries and under the garb of so-called right of self-defence, the life of an individual cannot be taken nor …” (at para 6)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 8 November 1996 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Protest policingPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“To resort to straightway firing in itself is the presumptive proof of the torturous act committed by the State and its functionaries and under the garb of so-called right of self-defence, the life of an individual cannot be taken nor …” (para 6)

Institutional response

1
8 Nov 1996

Order issued

Concluded
Punjab and Haryana High Court External · Binding

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2(1997) ACC 108
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.