Hansaria, J. — This case generated some heat in the Court room. We were not surprised at it inasmuch as Shri Nilamani Singh appearing for Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation (CLAHRO), the petitioner, expressed his indignation when Shri Chetia, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and Shri Promode Singh learned Senior Government Advocate, Manipur were trying to bring home to the Court that due to difficult terrain and surrounding circumstances it had not been possible to hand over arrested persons even within 5 days to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station despite best efforts on the part of the Assam Rifles. The agitated mind of Shri Nilamani Singh, who is otherwise a very cool counsel, owes its origin to the fact that the Union of India or for that matter, the State of Manipur was trying to place something before the Court which were not in their affidavits. This was, however, being done, according to the learned counsel, to prejudice the mind of the Court against the just claim of compensation demanded by the petitioner on behalf of the victims of excess at the hands of the Assam Rifles. We have also to note the observation made by the Commanding Officer of Assam Rifles, Manipur Range (who was present in the Court) when the case was heard that the cases were worrying them, which was supplemented by Shri Chetia by stating that these cases are standing in the way of discharge of duties by the security forces inasmuch as their attention is diverted by such Court cases. We brought home to all concerned that role of law does not cease to function even under difficult circumsta­nces. The clash of arms cannot drown the voice of law. Indeed, it is id difficult time that our concern for the rule of law is tested. It has been acknowledged by this Court in many cases, including Nongshitombi vs. Reishang Keishing, (1982) 1 GLR 755 and Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights vs. Union of India, (1988) 1 G. L. J. 132 that the task of security forces when called upon to fight insurgency is very difficult and the same should not be made more difficult by us. In Noagshitombi it was however stated by one of us (Hansaria, J) “.,. In Noagshitombi it was however stated by one of us (Hansaria, J) “.,. we have no hesitation in stating that the entire nation is indebted to the armed forces for their assistance rendered in distress and difficult days and there can be no two opinions about their contribution in quelling even internal disorders. But a harmony has to be struck. A balance between crushing of violence and crushing of liberty has to be found and the legislature has itself done so. It may also be remembered that we have been a free and democratic country for over 35 years by now. Ours is matured Republic. We occupy a place of pride in the comity of nations. We are a signatory to the Interna­tional covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Our armed forces have a bright image. They are disciplined and imbibed and imbued with the spirit of service and sacrifice. Let them undergo the discipline of fundamental rights also when operating against their own countrymen.” 2. The important question involved in this writ petition is whether this Court can and should grant compensation for violation of fundamental rights of the persons who met their end white assisting Assam Rifles or who were kept beyond the legally per­mitted time in the custody of the Assam Rifles before handing over to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station. Shri Nilamani Singh contended that there was gross violation of Articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Constitution in the present cases inasmuch as the liberty of the citizens were curtailed by procedure unknown to law or the one which is visualised by the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Power Act, 1958, hereinafter the Act. May we say that the Act in its section 5 has contemplated that any person arrested and taken into custody shall be made over “to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with least possible delay” together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest. It has been impressed upon us by Shri Nilamani Singh that though all the concerned persons were arrested in Oinam, many of them were handed over to the police long after which in some cases was even after 5 days. It has been impressed upon us by Shri Nilamani Singh that though all the concerned persons were arrested in Oinam, many of them were handed over to the police long after which in some cases was even after 5 days. As section 5 of the aforesaid Act visualizes handing over of arrested person to the nearest police station with “the least possible delay”, it is submitted by Shri Nilamani Singh that detention of these persons by the Assam Rifles for long five days or more did violate Article 21 of the Constitution, so also Article 22 (2),. 3 In reply Shri Chetia and Shri Promode Singh tried to impress upon us that the time taken was minimum inasmuch as though the nearest police station to Oinam is that of Maram a distance of about 40 K. Ms., the time taken (even if the same is five days or more) cannot be regarded to be in violation of section 5 because the difficult terrain, problem of transport and of taking the arrested persons with due security was not possible in 3/4 days. As nothing was said in the two counter affidavits filed by the concerned respondents relating to any difficulty in handing over the arrested persons to the nearest police station with least possible delay, it was stated by Shri Nilamani Sings that we may not allow the aforesaid factors to cloud our vision an4 to play soft on the gross violation of the fundamental rights. We agree with the learned counsel and we are of the view that the delay of five days or more in case of some of the arrested persons has not been duly explained to us to overlook the delay. May we say that Shri Nilamani Singh in all fairness did not make a grievance About delay upto 4 days due to difficult terrain. 4. This takes us to the question whether compensation can be awarded in the present cases to the victims of excesses. The power and jurisdiction of this Court to award compensation for violation of fundamental rights cannot be in dispute after a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. We may refer only to five decisions which are clinching on this point. The power and jurisdiction of this Court to award compensation for violation of fundamental rights cannot be in dispute after a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. We may refer only to five decisions which are clinching on this point. The first is that of Rudal Shah vs. State of Bihar, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 1086 in which Chandrachud C. J, observed as below : “Article 21 which guaranteed the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One f the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's right, It may have recourse against those officers.” The compensation assessed was said to be over and above damages which could be recovered by filing suits. We may then refer to Sebastian M. Hongray vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026 in which cost of Rs. l,00,000/-was awarded to the family members of the victim. Then come to the case of Bhim Sigh vs. State of J & K. AIR 1986 SC 494 in which the MLA had incurred the wrath of the powers that be and was kept in police lock up for 4 days without he having been produced before the Magistrate. The arrest was regarded as mischievous. The Apex Court stated in this connection as below in para 3. The arrest was regarded as mischievous. The Apex Court stated in this connection as below in para 3. “When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation”. Being of this view compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to the petitioner, 5. We then come to the case of Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 355 in which compensation of Rs. 20,000/ was ordered to be paid to the relatives of the victims who died in police firing. It was also stated in this connection that the liability of wrong doer is not absolved by paying a sum of Rs. 20,000/-But as a working principle and for convenience and with a view to rehabilitating the dependants of the deceased the compensation was ordered to be paid. A sum of Rs. 5.000/- was ordered to be paid to each of the injured person. 6. Shri Nilamani Singh has strongly relied in this connection on M. C Mehata vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 wherein it was stated that compensation in social action litigation can be paid even if there in no prayer to that effect. It was pointed out that the application for compensation is for enforcement of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and while dealing with such application, a hyper technical approach which would defeat the ends of justice could not be adopted. It was then stated that in case of violation of fundamental right of a person he can seek the remedial assistance under Article 32 of the Constitution, and this remedial relief would include the power of the Court to grant compensation in appropriate cases. It was then stated that in case of violation of fundamental right of a person he can seek the remedial assistance under Article 32 of the Constitution, and this remedial relief would include the power of the Court to grant compensation in appropriate cases. Of course the infringement of the fundamental right must be gross and patent, that is, in controvertible and ex facie glaring and either such infringement should be on a large scale affecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons, or it should appear unust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of their poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position to require the person or persons, affected by such infringement to initiate and pursue action in the civil courts. Though these decisions relate to grant­ing of damage/compensation under Article 32, much of what has been stated in this aforesaid judgment would apply to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This aspect of the matter has been examined recently by this Court in Naga Peoples' Movement for Human Right vs. Union of India, 1988(1) GLJ 132. We do not propose to repeat what has been stated there. 7. Being satisfied that for violation of fundamental rights compensation can be awarded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, let it be seen whether there was flagrant and gross violation of the fundamental rights in the present case. Shri Nilamani Singh has urged that Article 21 and 22 (2) were trampled in the present case inasmuch as persons were kept detained without they are being produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of arrest excluding the time for the journey from the place of the arrest to the Court of the Magistrate which violated Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and also Article 21 inasmuch as their liberties were curtailed by violating the procedure established by law. It would be apposite at this stage to see what are the powers of the armed forces under the Act under which provision of law services of Assam Rifles were requisitioned to aid the civil power. It would be apposite at this stage to see what are the powers of the armed forces under the Act under which provision of law services of Assam Rifles were requisitioned to aid the civil power. Though section 4 (c) of the Act empowers the named officer to arrest without warrant any person who has committed cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence, section 5 of the Act which is in the following language- “5. Arrested persons to be made over the police:-Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest”. requires that the person arrested and taken into custody has to made Over to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay. 8. This Court had occasion to explain the parameters of law in this connection in Nungshitombi Devi (supra). As explained in that case the requirement of section 5 that the arrested person has to be made over to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with least possible delay only permits delay due to some physical impossibility to carry its command. 9, The aforesaid position in law has not been challenged before us and rightly inasmuch as the decision of this Court in Nungshitombi stands undisturbed because the Special Leave Petition Against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29. 4. 83 in SLP. No. 2357/83. : 10- The whole effort of Shri Chetia and for that matter of the learned Government Advocate was to satisfy us that the concerned persons were in fact handed over with the least possible delay. It was sought to be impressed upon us by the learned counsel of the Union of India and other respondents in which effort the Commanding Officer of the Assam Rifles, Manipur Range, also took part, that the difficult terrian and transport difficulties along with the need for maintaining security measures stood in the way of the Assam Rifles to hand over the person taken into custody by it to the nearest police station within even 3/4 days. A map showing the topography of the region was also placed before us to satisfy our mind that the persons taken into custody could not have been handed over, despite desire of the Assam Rifles, to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station within a period of even,3/4 days. According to Shri Chetia the time visualised by section 5 of the Act may extend in some cases upto even 15 days. We were taken aback at this submission and it is this submission which generated heat in the Court because of Shri Nilamani Singh taking exception to this submission which were not pleaded at all in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. As most of the arrested persons belong to Oinam village and as a person named S.Thio from this village was apprehended on 31. 7. 87 and was made over to police on 2. 8. 87 at 1-40 A. M. which shows that the handing over was within 2 days, Shri Nilamani Singh rightly urged that if the Assam Rifles would have desired handing over of other persons to the police they could have done so, if not within 2 days, definitely within 3 or 4 days. But as in many cases the persons apprehended were handed over after 5 or more days, it was submitted by Shri Nilamani Singh that the Constitutional rights of the aforesaid persons were grossly violated. We are satisfied with the submission of Shri Nilamani Singh and being further satisfied that in this public interest litigation on behalf of economically disadvantaged and otherwise dumb person we should grant compensation, we order - for payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the persons who were handed over to the police after 5 days or more. We have ordered for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- even knowing that in Bhim Singh (supra) the compensa­tion awarded was Rs. 50,000/- for deley of 3 days in producing the arrested person before the Magistrate. We have done so as Shri Nilamani Singh fairly demanded compensation of Rs.5,000/-only for each person. 11. This takes us to the cases of the persons who lost their lives encounter with the undergrounds. We shall confine our attention in this regard to B. Va and Ph. Ring about whom mention has been made in para 5 (a) of the additional affidavit dated 4.9.87 file on behalf of the Assam Rifles. 11. This takes us to the cases of the persons who lost their lives encounter with the undergrounds. We shall confine our attention in this regard to B. Va and Ph. Ring about whom mention has been made in para 5 (a) of the additional affidavit dated 4.9.87 file on behalf of the Assam Rifles. About these two persons it has been stated in the aforesaid para that they died in encounter with the Under­grounds when they were moving with the Assam Rifles to recover arms and ammunitions from the hideouts of the undergrounds. This shows that these two persons had met their end while trying to help the Assam Rifles and were Moving with them to recover arms and ammunitions from the hideouts of the undergrounds. It has been submitted by shri Chetia that these two persons were close collaboration of NSGN. We have no material to satisfy us in this regard. This has not been averred even in the affidavit of the Assam Rifles. So far as these two persons are concerned, we are therefore satisfied that what has been stated by the Apex Court in Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 355 would apply. May be point out here that after relying on the aforesaid decision this Court had granted compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- to each of the family members of the deceased persons who had met their end in politic firing in Civil Ride No. 167/88 which was disposed of on 9.6.88. We shall award the same amount to the family of the aforesaid two deceased. 12. In the result, the petition stands allowed by ordering award of compensation of Rs 5.000/- to each of the person who were kept in custody of the Assam Rifles for 5 days or more after their apprehension, whose names and details have been gives in the first application filed by the CLAHRO and its affidavit-in rejoinder filed on 10.8.87 (The detention of many persons for 5 days or more is apparent from the date of their apprehension as mentioned in the petition or rejoinder, and date of their handing over given in the counter affidavit of the Assam Rifles ) In so far as the persons mentioned in the first petition is concerned we shall however not grant any compensation in respect of D. Denial whose name finds place under SI. 8 of the petition. We have excluded him from the list of the person to get compensation because he had prayed to that effect. We also award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the families of the two deceased named above. Of the awarded amount 25% shall be paid by the State of Manipur and remaining 75% by the Union of India. We have saddled the State also with liability because it cannot shed its responsibility in the matter completely as after all the Assam Rifles was called to aid it. This compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today.