Mumbai Hostage Tragedy: The Rohit Arya Case and the Legal Questions It Raises

October 31, 2025

The recent hostage crisis in Mumbai’s Powai area involving Rohit Arya, a 50-year-old project director, has reignited debates surrounding mental distress, administrative accountability, and the limits of police force under Indian law.

While the tragedy ended with the safe rescue of 17 children and Arya’s subsequent death in police firing, several legal and ethical questions emerge regarding state responsibility, unpaid contractual dues, and the use of lethal force in hostage situations.

The Incident: From Protest to Tragedy

According to reports, Rohit Arya had previously worked as the Project Director for Project Let’s Change – PLC Swachhata Monitor, an initiative under the Majhi Shala, Sundar Shala campaign of the Maharashtra government’s primary education department.

Arya allegedly held grievances over unpaid dues worth ₹2 crore, claiming that his project work had been completed but never compensated. During negotiations, Arya released a video statement, asserting:

“My demands are simple, moral, and ethical. I am not a terrorist. I only seek justice.”

Armed with an air gun and an inflammable spray, Arya barricaded himself with 17 children at a film studio, demanding attention to his unpaid project dues. The Mumbai Police’s Quick Response Team (QRT) eventually neutralized him after a three-hour standoff.

Legal Lens: Statutes and Constitutional Provisions

1. Police Use of Force: Legality under the Indian Penal Code

Under Section 46(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the police are authorized to use force, even to the extent of causing death, in cases where the accused is charged with an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment.
However, in this case, Arya was not accused of such an offense prior to the incident. Thus, the proportionality of force becomes a central issue.

Further, Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) restricts the right of private defense and by extension the State’s power, emphasizing that force must be proportionate and necessary to the situation.

In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for police encounters, requiring:

An independent investigation in all cases of death due to police firing.
Compliance with NHRC guidelines, including magisterial inquiry and reporting to the Human Rights Commission.
Accountability for misuse of power or arbitrary action.

Hence, in Arya’s case, a judicial or magisterial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC is legally mandated.

2. Contractual Rights and Unpaid Dues

Arya’s claims regarding unpaid dues highlight issues under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring fairness and equality before the law and the right to livelihood as part of the right to life.

If Arya had indeed completed contractual work under a government project, his grievance could have been addressed through:

Civil Remedies under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Sections 73–75), allowing compensation for breach of contract.
Filing a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court seeking enforcement of contractual or statutory obligations by public authorities.

The Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (2004) 3 SCC 553 held that writ jurisdiction can extend to contractual disputes when the action of the State is arbitrary or violates Article 14.

Thus, Arya’s alleged non-payment claim, if genuine, represented a civil administrative dispute, not a criminal offense—raising the question of whether his desperation stemmed from systemic inaction.

3. Right to Life and Police Accountability

The right to life under Article 21 extends both to victims and offenders. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 emphasized that every action by law enforcement must be “fair, just, and reasonable”, even in moments of crisis.

In Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72, the Court ruled that fake encounters or disproportionate use of force amount to custodial homicide, punishable under IPC Sections 302 and 304.
Hence, the killing of Rohit Arya, though occurring during an active hostage crisis, must be examined through this lens of proportionality and necessity.

Socio-Legal Context: The Mental Health and Governance Angle

The statements of Arya’s wife and neighbors suggest that financial despair and lack of recognition played a critical role in his breakdown.
In this context, Section 84 of the IPC (acts of a person of unsound mind) and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, become relevant for evaluating whether psychological distress contributed to his actions.

Under the State’s duty of care, public officials are obligated to ensure that citizens’ grievances are addressed transparently and promptly, particularly when public contracts or livelihoods are involved.

Judicial and Administrative Accountability

The State of Maharashtra bears a dual responsibility:

To justify the police action under established guidelines (PUCL case).
To investigate the contractual payment dispute through appropriate departmental mechanisms.

In similar precedents, courts have observed that grievances against the government must be redressed through institutional legal remedies and not through acts of desperation.
However, the repeated protests by Arya outside ministerial offices suggest systemic neglect, raising concerns under Article 38 and Article 39 (Directive Principles of State Policy) regarding the promotion of welfare and equitable justice.

Conclusion: Between Desperation and Duty

The Rohit Arya case sits at the intersection of administrative failure, mental distress, and law enforcement responsibility.
While his actions endangered lives, the tragedy also exposes the institutional gaps in grievance redressal and the need for accountability in both governance and policing.

As investigations proceed, the matter underscores that justice must not only punish wrongdoing but also confront the conditions that create it.
The Constitution demands not only rule of law but also compassion in governance — a reminder as relevant today as ever.