| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1993 AIR 1960; 1993 SCR (2) 581; (1993) 2 SCC 746 |
| Decided | 24 March 1993 |
| Bench | Jagdish Saran Verma, A.S. Anand and N. Venkatachala, JJ. (judgment authored by J.S. Verma, J.) |
In short: A mother wrote to the Supreme Court after her young son died while in police custody. The Court found that he had died of injuries inflicted by the police. It held that when the State violates the right to life, the Supreme Court and the High Courts can order monetary compensation under public law, and the State cannot hide behind sovereign immunity.
Facts
The petitioner's son was about 22 years old. At about 8 a.m. on 1 December 1987, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police took him from his home in connection with the investigation of a theft. He was held at a police outpost. At about 2 p.m. the next day, his mother learnt that his dead body had been found on a railway track. The body had multiple injuries, and his death was unnatural.
The Supreme Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32. She asked for compensation for the violation of the right to life under Article 21.
The police version was different. They said he escaped from the outpost at about 3 a.m. on 2 December 1987 and could not be found despite a search. They said he was later run over by a train. In their view, their responsibility ended the moment he escaped, so there was no basis for State liability.
On 4 March 1991, the Court asked the District Judge to hold an inquiry. His report, dated 4 September 1991, found that the son died of multiple injuries inflicted in police custody at the outpost. The respondents challenged that finding before the Supreme Court.
The Court found the escape story unconvincing, for these reasons:
- There was no cogent independent evidence that the police had searched for him.
- Railwaymen found the body in the morning, but the police reached the spot only much later in the day.
- The doctor who did the postmortem excluded the possibility that all the injuries came from a train accident. All of them could have resulted from a merciless beating.
- Handcuffs were on his hands and a rope was around the body. This went against the claim that he got free by chewing through the rope.
The Court also noted that an inquiry under Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be conducted independently by a Magistrate, not jointly with a police officer, when the police officers' own role is under inquiry.
Issues
- Did the son die in police custody because of injuries inflicted on him, or did he escape and die in a train accident?
- Can the Supreme Court or a High Court award monetary compensation in writ proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 for violation of the right to life under Article 21?
- Can the State defend such a claim by pleading sovereign immunity?
Held
- It was a case of custodial death. The son died of injuries inflicted on him while he was in police custody at the outpost.
- Compensation under Article 32 or 226 is a public law remedy based on strict liability for violating fundamental rights. Enforcing a fundamental right includes awarding compensation as a legal consequence of the violation.
- The defence of sovereign immunity does not apply to this constitutional remedy. It may be a defence in a private law action for tort, but it is alien to the idea of guaranteed fundamental rights.
- This public law claim is distinct from, and in addition to, any private law suit for damages in tort. It also does not stop criminal prosecution of the offender. The compensation is in the nature of exemplary damages. The State remains free to take action against the wrongdoer in accordance with law.
- Article 32 is itself a fundamental right. It places an obligation on the Court to forge new tools where needed to do complete justice. Article 142 is also an enabling provision. A contrary view would make the Court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage.
- The State of Orissa was ordered to pay Rs 1,50,000 to the petitioner and Rs 10,000 as costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Board. The Court also gave directions on how the money is to be paid and on action against the individuals responsible.
A concurring opinion added a note of caution. Courts must act with circumspection and self-restraint, so that writ proceedings are not misused as a disguised substitute for a civil action. Relief should be given only once a violation of fundamental rights is established and no other appropriate redress is possible.
Why it matters
- It confirmed and built on the line of cases beginning with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), where the Court granted monetary relief for deprivation of fundamental rights.
- It gives a family a practical remedy. They need not wait for a long civil suit or rely only on a criminal trial to get redress from the State.
- It treats compensation as a way of making the State answerable for its public duty to protect fundamental rights. The Court also pointed out that without such relief there could be an incentive to extinguish life.
- A simple letter from a grieving mother was enough to start the case. This shows how the Court's writ jurisdiction can be used by ordinary people.
- The judgment has been cited in several hundred later decisions, according to the Indian Kanoon record.
Exam one-liner
For a custodial death violating Article 21, the Supreme Court and High Courts can award compensation under Articles 32 and 226 on strict liability, and sovereign immunity is no defence. (Nilabati Behera, 1993, 3 judges)
Frequently asked questions
Is the compensation the same as damages in a civil suit?
No. The Court called it a public law remedy in the nature of exemplary damages. It is separate from, and in addition to, a private law suit for damages in tort. It also does not prevent prosecution of the offender under the penal law.
Can the State avoid paying by claiming sovereign immunity?
Not in a constitutional claim for violation of a fundamental right. The Court said sovereign immunity may be a defence in a private law tort action, but it does not apply to the public law remedy under Articles 32 and 226. The State can still take action against the wrongdoer in accordance with law.