Arrested for drinking tea suspiciously - cutting chai
BE careful how you drink your tea; if a policeman finds it suspicious, he can arrest you. This is exactly want happened to Vijay Lahu Patil of Kolhapur who was arrested by a Police Sub Inspector around 11 AM on 22nd February 2013, when he was having tea at a roadside tea stall.
The unfortunate offender approached the Bombay High Court in writ claiming damages for illegal detention.
The High Court in its judgement dated 6.9.2013 observed,
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured."What is not in doubt, however, is that the only thing the Petitioner was doing in the late morning of 22nd February 2013 was having tea at a local tea-stall. The 4th Respondent (PSI) says there is no ‘satisfactory explanation' for this. This is bewildering. We were unaware that the law required anyone to give an explanation for having tea, whether in the morning, noon or night. One might take tea in a variety of ways, not all of them always elegant or delicate, some of them perhaps even noisy. But we know of no way to drink tea ‘suspiciously'. The ingestion of a cup that cheers demands no explanation. And while cutting chai is permissible, now even fashionable, cutting corners with the law is not.”
However the High Court did not grant compensation having regard to a decision of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh Pathania, wherein the Supreme Court had observed,
"Though the High Courts and this Court in exercise of their jurisdictions under Articles 226 and can award compensation for such violations but such a power should not be lightly exercised. These Articles cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations, which could be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process of courts. Before awarding any compensation there must be a proper enquiry on the question of facts alleged in the complaint. The court may examine the report and determine the issue after giving opportunity of filing objections to rebut the same and hearing to the other side. Awarding of compensation is permissible in case the court reaches the same conclusion on a re-appreciation of the evidence adduced at the enquiry. Award of monetary compensation in such an eventuality is permissible when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers."