Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
1993 (2) SCC 746; AIR 1993 SC 1960, [1993]2SCR581
Hon’ble Judges/ Coram: J.S. Verma, A.S. Anand and N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Date of Decision: March 24, 1993
FACTS:-
In this case letter of Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera sent to this Court, was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for determining the claim of compensation made therein consequent upon, the death of petitioner’s son Suman Behera aged about 22 years, in police custody. Petitioner’s son was taken from his home in police custody at about 8 a.m. on 1.12.1987 in connection with the investigation of an offence of theft and detained at the Police Outpost. The next day at about 2 p.m. his dead body was found on the railway track near the Police Outpost, without being released from custody, and his death was unnatural caused by multiple injuries sustained by him. The prayer made in the petition is for award of compensation to the petitioner, the mother of Suman Behera, for violation of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and for other human rights. To avoid this obvious and logical inference of custodial death, the learned Additional Solicitor General relied on the respondent’s defence that Suman Behera had managed to escape from police custody at about 3 a.m. on the night between the 1st and 2nd December, 1987 and he was likely was run over by a passing train. In contrary to this assertion, the medical evidence comprising the testimony of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, excludes the possibility of all the injuries to Suman Behera being caused in a train accident while indicating that all of them could result from the merciless beating given to him. In light of the admitted facts & on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the inquiry, this Court reached the conclusion that it is a case of custodial death and Suman Behera died as a result of the injuries inflicted to him voluntarily while he was in police custody.
ISSUE:-
- Whether in the exercise of jurisdiction under article 32 or article 226, the Supreme Court or High Court respectively can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right or human right?
JUDGMENT:-
It may be mentioned straightaway that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings.
In this context, it is sufficient to say that the decision of this Court in Kasturilal Ralia Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 375 upholding the State’s plea of sovereign immunity for tortious acts of its servants is confined to the sphere of liability in tort, which is distinct from the State’s liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application in the constitutional scheme, and is no defence to the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution which enables award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights, when the only practicable mode of enforcement of the fundamental rights can be the award of compensation.
That apart, the public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.
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.
It was further held that, the State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible.
Thus, for the reasons recorded, in the facts of the present case, the Court directed the state to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Board.
HELD:-
This case clearly spell out the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability under Pubic law and the liability in Private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
