Illegal detention and Compensation

Illegal detention and Compensation: 

In Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (1983) 4 SCC 141, Y.V. Chandrachud, CJ, speaking for a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed thus: 

“One of 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.”

In Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 677, holding illegal detention in police custody of the petitioner Bhim Singh to be violative of his rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in exercise of its power to award compensation under Article 32, directed the State to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner. Relying on Rudal Sah (supra), O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. echoed the following views:

“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”.

In Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 746, clearing the doubt and indicating the precise nature of the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to award compensation for contravention of fundamental rights, which had arisen because of the observation that “the petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial” in Rudul Sah ((1983) 4 SCC 141), J.S. Verma, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated as under:

“It follows that 'a claim in public law for compensation' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, 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, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.”