1984 riots: HC rejects plea for compensation to Sikh families

A division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice A J Shastri of Gujarat High court dismissed an appeal filed by four persons against a single-judge bench order rejecting their plea for compensation to 60 Sikh families in Ahmedabad, who were allegedly affected during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

Ahmedabad (Gujarat): The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by four persons against a single-judge bench order rejecting their plea for compensation to 60 Sikh families in Ahmedabad, who were allegedly affected during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

The division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice A J Shastri on January 9 rejected the appeal.

The petitioners had sought compensation from the Gujarat government claiming that the 60 Sikh families were affected by the 1984 riots that broke out across the country following the assassination of the then prime minister Indira Gandhi.

The petitioners claimed that even after over three decades, around 60 Sikh families in Ahmedabad were not adequately compensated by the Gujarat government, nor proper investigation was undertaken.

They sought "appropriate compensation in accordance with law and damages occurred to the properties of victim families", which was rejected by Justice A Y Kogje in an order passed on June 12 last year.

The division bench's order, which was passed last week and made available on Wednesday, said the petitioners failed to provide material facts to justify the relief.

The court also said that the Ahmedabad collector in his report said that the representations of the petitioners do not indicate any loss suffered by the appellants.

The court also said that no factual details were provided to justify the claims of the families, and that "a few non-suited persons" (petitioners) were espousing their cause.

"On the basis of the material which is made available on the record, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appellants have miserably failed in making out a case and that being the position, the appeal lacks merit," the court said.