Informers take enormous risks to give secret information to authorities, should be rewarded as per policy: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that informers take huge risks to furnish important information to the authorities and that the authorities should reward them accordingly as per government policy. [Jayashree Chandrakant Dhavre vs Union of India].In the case at hand, a division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Abhay Ahuja ordered the Custom Authorities to pay the reward payable under a 2015 policy to the widow of an informer who had given a tip about the smuggling of diamonds worth ₹ 90 lakhs by a jeweller in Mumbai, way back in 1991. "Though there is no legal right to demand a reward, as stated in the policy, the rejection must not be arbitrary, and the approach should not be such that it discourages the Informers from coming forward. Ultimately, the objective of offering a reward to the Informer is to aid the department in taking measures to safeguard the public exchequer. The Informers take enormous risks in providing information," the bench observed.Unfortunately, in this case, the bench said, the authorities had taken a 'rigid' stand. "The correct approach would have been to go by broad probabilities of the case, the peculiar circumstances of the case and the hardship of the Petitioner and should have handled this case with sensitivity," the bench opined. .The judges were seized of a plea filed by the widow of an informer who had sought the final reward as per the Guidelines for grant of reward to Informers and Government Servants, 2015, framed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Anti-Smuggling Unit) issued on July 30, 2015.The woman contended that prior to his death in 2010, her husband had been following up with the authorities for the final reward payable for his 1992 tip to the customs authorities. He had received an interim reward of ₹ 3 lakh, as per the policy, the Court was told. The Court was also appraised that the informer had lost his eye sight in an accident in 1992. .The authorities, however, disputed the identity of her husband as the informer who had given the secret information which led to the seizure of the diamonds imported from abroad. Terming this stance as being arbitrary, the petitioner-widow pointed out that the authorities had already paid interim rewards to her husband without disputing his identity. .Expressing agreement, the Court opined, "Once the authorities have accepted that reward at the interim stage was paid to Chandrakant and that the Petitioner has established that she is the legal heir of Chandrakant, then withholding the final reward is entirely arbitrary."The bench concluded that the woman's claim is meritorious. "We find that this is a fit case where the interference of the Court is necessary. In the facts of this case, non-intervention by us in the writ jurisdiction would amount to a failure of justice," the order stated.As such, the Court proceeded to direct the authorities to decide on the final reward to be paid as per the 2015 policy. .Advocate Ashok Singh appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Dhananjay Deshmukh represented the respondents..[Read Order]